Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL

To be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Government Departments (Office Space)

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will give details of how the extra 1 million square feet of office space occupied by Government Departments within the London area compared with October, 1964, is divided up between Departments; and whether they are all in central London.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. James Boyden): Four hundred thousand square feet in central London is occupied by Headquarters staff. The remaining 600,000 square feet is on the periphery and is almost equally divided between Headquarters and local staff. To produce a comprehensive statement would cost too much to be justified.

Mr. Berry: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a large increase, bearing in mind the Labour Party's promise that the machinery of Government would be modernised? On the specific question of those in central London, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this must add considerably to the existing congestion on London transport so that these people can get to and from home at peak hours?

Mr. Boyden: The fact is that two-thirds of this was negotiated before the Labour Administration came into office. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not implying that civil servants must be overcrowded and accommodated to a scale below that of commercial offices.

Mr. Rippon: Will the hon. Gentleman say what has happened to the plan to vacate offices as well as to negotiate new ones?

Mr. Boyden: There has been expansion. The Accounts branch of the Ministry of Public Building and Works is moving to Hastings and Customs and Excise to Southend. A considerable amount is to be moved both to the periphery and even further afield.

Palace of Westminster

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what works he contemplates completing within the Palace of Westminster during the Summer Adjournment.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Reginald Prentice): As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what effect the Prime Minister's announcement the other day will have on the long-term developments of extra accommodation for Members?

Mr. Prentice: The Question deals with the coming Recess. In that connection, we have dropped two schemes for panelling work which would have cost about £10,000 altogether. Other schemes directly related to accommodation are going ahead during this Recess. With regard to the longer term, I would need more notice of the question.

Following are the details:

Main Works to be completed during the Summer Recess 1966

House of Commons

1. Completion of new accommodation in the Upper Committee Corridor (Central) and the Upper Committee Corridor (South) (Roof Space scheme).
2. Construction of a mezzanine floor above the Committee Office.
3. Construction of a new staircase from the Whips Office to the Cloisters and new partitions to form Members' Writing Rooms.
4. Partitioning Desk Rooms A and B in the Upper Committee Corridor (North).

House of Lords

5. Installation of air-conditioning in the Chamber.
6. Alterations to kitchen for Refreshment Department.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how old is the carpet in the corridor outside the Strangers Dining Room of the House of Commons; and whether, having regard to its present condition, he will renew it during the Summer Recess.

Mr. Boyden: Four years old. Its condition does not justify replacement, but it will be cleaned during the Summer Recess.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I asked a Question about this a couple of year ago, when it was very dirty and tattered, and it has got considerably worse? Cleaning will not repair it, and it is not up to the standard of what we ought to have in this Parliament compared with other Parliaments throughout the world.

Mr. Boyden: It is cleaned three or four times a year. It is not in very good condition, but it is in a very vulnerable spot. Replacement would cost about £450, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want that sort of expenditure now.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ROBERT COOKE: To ask the Minister of Public Building and Works, what has been the expenditure on facilities for hon Members' wives in the Palace of Westminster since October, 1964; and what expenditure is planned in the year 1966–67.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Robert Cooke.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has just got married and is not here to ask his Question, may a Written Answer be sent to him on his honeymoon?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Constitution Hill ("No Trade Vehicles" Sign)

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why the "No Trade Vehicles" sign at the Hyde Park Corner entrance to Constitution Hill is sited in the way it is; and if he is aware that drivers cannot see it until after they have turned into Constitution Hill.

Mr. Boyden: The sign has been erected on the most suitable site under the control of my Department. The local authority thought that an earlier warning sign would not be noticed because of the heavy traffic.

Mr. Berry: Would the hon. Gentleman care to meet me on the spot so that he can see how ridiculous it is to have the sign there, and can he arrange for some


other sign to be put up to save lorries going in and being unable to get out again?

Mr. Boyden: Similar difficulties have been experienced in Regent's Park. The signs there have done some good, but I am prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this.

Bricks

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a further statement on the current stockpiles of bricks.

Mr. Boyden: Brick stocks at the end of June were about 815 million; a fall of about 50 million during the month.

Miss Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman realise the extent of public concern about this? This is the season when most building should be done, and bricks piling up in stockpiles cannot build the houses which are so badly needed.

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is very conscious of the difficulties which this creates for the brickmakers and for everybody else. We are doing our best to try to find some solution to the problem.

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the level of brick stocks at the end of every quarter since the cessation of hostilities in 1945.

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir.

Miss Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman draw this table to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and ask him whether one or other Minister could provide the public with an explanation of how to translate the promised planning into houses? It is very difficult for Members, and still more for the public, to appreciate what is happening.

Mr. Boyden: The table does not show anything very different from what happened in the past. For example, under Conservative Administrations in 1957, 1958, 1962 and 1963, there were considerable surpluses, and, worse, in the spring and summer of 1953, 1960 and 1964, there were serious shortages.

Following is the table:


QUARTERLY LEVELS OF BRICK STOCKS IN GREAT BRITAIN 1945–1966


Millions


Year

At end of first Quarter
At end of second Quarter
At end of third Quarter
At end of fourth Quarter


1945
…
1,173
1,187
1,157
990


1946
…
712
379
267
270


1947
…
379
307
259
348


1948
…
541
542
539
515


1949
…
448
291
190
179


1950
…
174
115
109
166


1951
…
214
159
146
184


1952
…
234
180
133
145


1953
…
114
79
75
99


1954
…
184
147
140
229


1955
…
378
233
149
188


1956
…
330
233
203
254


1957
…
385
316
280
385


1958
…
593
444
350
349


1959
…
417
177
92
114


1960
…
148
89
90
160


1961
…
198
122
105
213


1962
…
378
333
303
422


1963
…
912
567
322
263


1964
…
188
84
81
115


1965
…
151
154
233
561


1966
…
882
815 (*)




* Provisional.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the manufacturers of bricks on the need for extra credit to meet the cost of the stockpile of bricks.

Mr. Boyden: The National Federation of Clay Industries raised this question with my right hon. Friend in 1965. He told them that no special credit facilities could be granted, and this is still the case.

Mr. Goodhart: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that throughout 1965 brickmakers' profits fell and that their bank overdrafts increased? How does he think they will get through this latest credit squeeze without having to cut back on production?

Mr. Boyden: The situation is serious for them, but I do not accept that all brickmakers have shown poor profits. Many have shown quite reasonable profits.

Polaris Submarine Depot, Faslane

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how much money has now been spent on the


Polaris submarine Missile depot near Faslane; and if he will state the estimated amount to be spent on roads, sewers, buildings, etc., before the depot is completed.

Mr. Boyden: About £3 million has been spent on the Royal Naval Armament Depot at Coulport out of a total estimate of £5 million.

Mr. Hughes: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is any possibility of a freeze on the activity connected with Polaris submarines during the financial crisis? Will he convey to his right hon. Friends that people in Scotland wonder why they have the impertinence to ask local authorities to economise when they are going ahead with useless expenditure of this sort?

Mr. Boyden: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be noted, but one of the good things about the situation is that the building industry is doing very well in Scotland and is able to cope.

Royal Palaces

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether, in order to release scarce building labour and materials for more essential purposes, he will now order a standstill on all work currently being done on Royal Palaces.

Mr. Boyden: A general standstill would lead to heavy claims from contractors and delay essential maintenance work. However, we propose to defer two major schemes—the office reconstruction in Stable Yard, St. James's Palace, at an estimated cost of between £130,000 and £140,000, and the reconstruction and restoration of the roof of Apartment 9, Kensington Palace, at an estimated cost of £42,000.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that that news gives a little measure of satisfaction? Is he also aware that I am concerned just a little at the fact that he talks about deferring the scheme for St. James's Palace? Why not stop it altogether? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it conflicts with the Government's policy on office allocations in London. Can my hon. Friend assure the House

that the Ministry will not stop at cutting this quite extravagant expenditure of £800,000 this year?

Mr. Boyden: The scheme will be reviewed in a further six months' time. I would point out to my hon. Friend that St. James's Palace is of considerable historic significance. The facade was probably built by Sir Nicholas Hawkesmoor. At the moment the site is derelict and its reconstruction would provide much-needed accommodation for the Royal Household staff, which at the moment is in very overcrowded conditions and in hired premises.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I do not agree with what the hon. Member has said. Why should the work be stopped on these buildings when the Government see fit to spend hundreds and thousands of £s on furnishing and renovating houses for Ministers?

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does not the Minister recall that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) the other day was complaining about sniping at bureaucrats? Is it not about time that the Minister assisted us by stopping his hon. Friend from sniping at the Royal Family?

Mr. Boyden: The general policy on many of these historic buildings is that the country wants them to be repaired because they are part of our heritage, and it is sensible to make use of them. It is better to put people into them rather than have them left as museums.

Building Programme

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what effect he estimates recent financial measures will have upon the building programme of 1967.

Mr. Prentice: The demand for building work will be affected directly by the restrictions on public spending and the extension of building controls and indirectly by the other economic measures. I cannot at present estimate the net result of the measures as a whole. But I hope that one effect will be to improve progress on important programmes such as housing, industrial building and work in development areas.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Will the Minister take the opportunity to announce plainly whether building societies will be permitted to raise mortgage rates on existing mortgages from their present level on 1st October, as a freeze there could have a catastrophic effect on their reserves and, in consequence, on next year's housing programme?

Mr. Prentice: I am not sure how that point arises from the Question. It is not one for me to answer. The hon. Member's remark will be noted, but he will not expect me to reply.

Housing Costs

Mr. Sharples: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will state the average percentage rise in the price of new dwelling mortgages by private owners in each of the years 1961–62 to 1964–65; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works in which year or years during the period covered by his Department's records the cost of a house rose by an amount exceeding the 10 per cent. recorded in 1966.

Mr. Prentice: The percentage rise between 1961 and 1962 was 6·8 and in the three subsequent years 6·5, 7·6 and 9·9. But between the second quarter of 1960 and the second quarter of 1961 the rise was 10·6 per cent.

Mr. Sharples: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures for the year 1965 constitute an all-time record?

Mr. Prentice: It depends whether one is taking the figures for the calendar year 1965 and comparing them with other calendar years. If one is, then it certainly is a record compared with other calendar years. The previous year was almost exactly the same. I said that it was 9·9 per cent. for the previous year, which is nearly the same as for the following year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the answer he gave last week when he disputed the proposition put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)? Will he also give an assurance that he will not break the record again this year?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, in my original reply I referred to the period of 12 months, in which the figure was 10·6 per cent., and therefore higher than the 10 per cent. about which we bandied points last time. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) made two propositions to me, one of which was nearly correct but not quite, and the other of which was seriously out. I said that I did not agree with either proposition. I therefore have nothing to withdraw. He had something to withdraw, and he did withdraw it, because he was out of order at the time.

Mr. Rippon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whenever these figures have been discussed we have referred invariably to a calendar year? Will he now apologise for the answer he gave me, just as I apologised for what I said to him?

Mr. Prentice: I have nothing to apologise for, for the reason I have given. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not apologise to me last week; he withdrew what he said in accordance with your instructions, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether he considers he has something for which to apologise, but whether or not he does is a matter for him.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Does the Minister realise that we have had from this Government three or four different Ministers giving the same wrong answer as he gave last week? Will he try to see that this matter is cleared up, and also see that there is some co-ordination between Ministers?

Mr. Prentice: I have given a series of figures. The answer that I gave last week was in reply to a supplementary question. Subsequent research has shown that my answer was not wrong. It did not go into figures, because I do not carry these figures in my head. I think that the House would be better employed looking at the facts of the situation in general terms and not in bandying statistics back and forth. But there was a period in which the rise was 10·6 per cent.

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the effect on building costs of the import surcharge at


the levels of 15 per cent., and 10 per cent. in 1965 and in the first six months of 1966; and what will be the effect of abolition of the surcharge on an average contract.

Mr. Prentice: It is not possible to say exactly how far the imposition of the surcharge increased the costs of imported materials, or how far the removal will reduce them. In both cases the amount would certainly be less than 1 per cent. on average of total construction costs.

Mr. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the muddle caused by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who said, on 24th May, that the effect of S.E.T. would be offset by the rebate on the surcharge? This is quite different from what the Minister has just said. Who is correct?

Mr. Prentice: In both cases we are dealing with very small percentages. In the case of S.E.T., as I have already said, the estimated increase will be about 2 per cent. I have said on many occasions that this would be partially offset by the removal of the import surcharge. I have not the exact words used by my hon. Friend to which reference has just been made.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is not the Minister aware that this is another example of Ministers seeming to differ? Will he look at the announcement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing on 24th May and compare it with what his hon. Friend said to me later? They are totally different statements.

Mr. Prentice: This is another example of hon. Members opposite taking remarks out of context in order to try to score points. It has been recognised by a number of Government spokesmen that S.E.T. will put up the costs of construction to a limited extent. I have said that this will be offset by other factors, including investment incentive schemes and the effect of the rebate under S.E.T. on manufactured components used in building, and the removal of the import surcharge. This statement has been made by many Members of the Government in this connection.

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works by how much the average price of new dwellings mortgaged by private owners in Great Britain rose in the first quarter of 1966.

Mr. Prentice: By just over 1 per cent.

Direct Labour

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has formed of the number of operatives in the building industry directly employed by public authorities.

Mr. Boyden: 363,000 construction workers in April 1965, the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As these 363,000 are workers employed by public authorities who will get a refund of the Selective Employment Tax compared with private contractors who have to pay it, and as the productivity of direct labour is only about half that of the private builder, would it not be better Government policy to apply S.E.T. to local authorities?

Mr. Boyden: As far as productivity is concerned, hon. Members opposite always pick the worst cases and never say anything about the good cases. I utterly refute what the hon. Member says. 71,000 of the workers employed by public authorities are engaged on new work, and 292,000 are engaged on repair and maintenance. That means that practically half the repair and maintenance work is done for public authorities by direct labour, and the S.E.T. is most unlikely to affect them.

Mr. Sharples: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the gross output per person per annum for the year ended 31st March, 1966, for persons employed in construction by private contractors and what were the figures for persons employed by the direct labour departments of local authorities.

Mr. Prentice: Figures are available only in respect of output per site operative per annum. The figures at current prices are:
Private Contractors £2,965.
Local Authorities £1,575 (provisional estimate) Comparison of these figures is meaningless, not least because local authority direct labour employees, unlike


contractors' men, are mainly engaged on maintenance. When local authority direct labour departments and private contractors compete there appears normally to be little difference in tender prices.

Mr. Sharples: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the exact figure, which is among the figures available in his Department, of the comparative figures for new construction?

Mr. Prentice: Not without notice, but, as I said, they show generally very little difference, when the conditions are comparable, in their tendering for the same kind of job.

Agrément Board

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when the Agrément Board will begin to issue certificates.

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when the Agrément Board will begin to issue certificates.

Mr. Prentice: The Board expects to begin to enter into formal contracts with manufacturers in October. When certificates can be issued will depend on the length of time required for testing and assessment.

Mr. Body: Why has there been this delay? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that a year has gone by since it was decided to appoint this Board?

Mr. Prentice: The Board was appointed at the end of last year, so that rather less than a year has gone by. The Board has been fully occupied in the meantime in arranging staffing, accommodation and organisation and going into the legal and procedural problems of starting a completely new operation. I think that it has made reasonably good progress. I hope that on both sides of the House there will be a general welcome for what it is beginning to do and that hon. Members will wish it well in its efforts.

Sir J. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the work of the Board could become immensely

valuable and that it should press ahead. Will he give it every encouragement?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. In the interim period, applications from manufacturers have been accepted and the Board is arranging for the Building Research Station to undertake testing in suitable cases. Although the formal contracts will not begin until October, some preliminary work is going ahead which will expedite matters after that date.

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he has taken to ensure co-operation between the Agrément Board and the National Building Agency, in view of the possibility of the Board examining building systems.

Mr. Stainton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether the Agrément Board will approve building systems.

Mr. Prentice: The Agrément Board will make technical assessments of all building innovations, including new products, techniques, or systems. It will issue certificates based on its findings. At the suggestion of my predecessor, the Chairmen of the National Building Agency and of the Agrément Board have already met and agreed on a basis for mutual co-operation.

Mr. Body: When did that take place? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that only a fortnight ago a new director said that there had not been time to co-operate with the agencies? How can he reconcile those two statements?

Mr. Prentice: I am advised that they have met to discuss this, although I do not have the dates in front of me. Certainly, the advice given to my predecessor was that they should have these discussions in order to see that there is no overlapping. I do not think that there need be any overlapping. I believe that there is a fairly clear division of function between the two.

Mr. Strauss: Would my right hon. Friend consider using a good English name for the Board, such as the Standards Board?

Mr. Prentice: The name was settled before I took over this office. The advantage of the name is that it is the


name used in many other countries. It has a very important international aspect, in that British materials which get an Agrément certificate will thereby be helped in export markets, particularly in the setting up of an Agrément Board between countries—the Union d'Agrément Internationale.

Mr. Rippon: While I welcome the existence of this Board, whatever its name, would the Minister say why it was decided to have a separate Board and not allow this work to be done under the auspices of the National Building Agency?

Mr. Prentice: There is a separate function here, in that the Agrément Board will be looking at materials and components. In so far as both may be looking at building systems, the Board will be looking at the technical aspects of the components used, whereas the agency will be looking at the commercial and architectural aspects and so on. These are different functions.

Foreign Office Building

Captain Orr: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what will be the effect of the present economic policies on his plans for the Foreign Office building.

Mr. Prentice: As the rebuilding was not scheduled to start for several years, there is no foreseeable effect.

Captain Orr: None the less, would it not be useful now to announce the abandonment of this scheme in order to assist the general climate? Is this not a pill which the British public will be only too happy to swallow?

Mr. Prentice: The original scheme was accepted by the last Government for reasons which they thought fit and the decision has been repeated by the present Goverment. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the reasons given. Those reasons are still valid.

Departmental Staff (Far East)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what contingency plans he has for the redeployment of personnel in his Department at present serving in the Far East to meet a large

withdrawal of British troops from the Far East; and what plans he has for finding posts for such personnel in Great Britain.

Mr. Prentice: Apart from locally-engaged personnel, my Department has only 327 staff in the Far East, not all of whom are employed on work for the Armed Services.
Staff recalled as the result of any military redeployment could be readily employed in the United Kingdom or elsewhere against existing vacancies.

Plasterboard

Mr. Urwin: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the current delivery period of plasterboard.

Mr. Boyden: Plasterboard is available for immediate delivery.

Mr. Urwin: Although this Answer will be very widely applauded and accepted in the construction industry, what are the contributory factors leading to this situation, bearing in mind the difficulties which we had during 1964 and 1965?

Mr. Boyden: Tardy investment in new capacity.

Building Maintenance (Labour Deployment)

Mr. Urwin: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement of the progress of the committee set up in 1965 to examine the deployment of labour in building maintenance.

Mr. Boyden: The Commttee has met five times. Studies have been started on the effect of design on building maintenance, the efficiency with which maintenance work is being carried out, and the performance of materials and components. Good progress is being made, and the Committee's reports have been well received

Mr. Urwin: How soon will the finalised report of the Committee be available?

Mr. Boyden: There will not be a final report but a series of reports on particular aspects of the subject. We hope that these matters will be considered by those concerned with maintenance and taken into account by the industry.

Mr. Costain: What co-ordination takes place between this Committee and those designing new buildings with the idea of cutting down maintenance?

Mr. Boyden: One of them is concerned with this particular problem of design and its bearing on maintenance, but co-ordination with the main committee is very close on all aspects of the subject.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman publish the reports which are available to local authorities showing how the various industrialised systems of building compare with the traditional system as regards the maintenance which is subsequently necessary on each of them?

Mr. Boyden: I will take note of that remark.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: While I welcome the Committee and the progress which it has made, would not the hon. Gentleman say that the present policy of refunding direct labour operatives is unfair to private contractors? Would it not be a good thing if the Minister could say at his meeting tomorrow that he has changed his policy, because nothing would be better calculated to restore confidence?

Mr. Boyden: As I said in answer to a previous Question, S.E.T. seems to have very little bearing on the operations of local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Disabled Persons

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when she anticipates being able to introduce constant attendance allowance or other financial provision for severely disabled people living at home; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will introduce legislation to secure a disablement pension for housewives and mothers working full-time in the home suffering from chronic sickness or disability.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Margaret Herbison): I have nothing to add to the replies which

I gave to the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Astor) and for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) on 27th June.

Mr. Astor: Would the right hon. Lady give an assurance that, when the review is completed, she will give urgent priority to this group of disabled people, in spite of the present economic difficulties?

Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have not so far waited until the review was completed before bringing forward measures which have come from the review. As to priorities, there are many problems in this country at present, and priorities between one and another will have to be decided at the proper time.

Miss Pike: Will the right hon. Lady admit that recent financial measures which have been taken, and the economic situation, have overtaken the situation and that the position of these people will be very difficult? Will she make certain that she acts as quickly as possible?

Miss Herbison: Certainly, as we have acted quickly on other things, we will act as quickly as possible on this. It is not the case at all that these people will be very seriously hit by the economic situation, since the Government are doing everything possible to protect them.

Dr. Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that National Assistance Board often allows only £3 to those looking after totally disabled and the mentally ill, whereas the cost in a public institution is at least £10 a week? Will she look into this?

Miss Herbison: The National Assistance Board has to take into account whatever income the person has. I know that they try to deal with these people as generously as possible, particularly with those single women who give up their work to look after ailing parents.

Miss Pike: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) how many disabled persons in need of constant attention because of their disability receive no benefit from her Department apart from help from the National Assistance Board;

(2) how many disabled persons in need of constant attention because of their


disability are receiving regular payments from the National Assistance Board.

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) how many disabled persons in need of constant attention because of their disability receive no benefit from her Department, apart from help from the National Assistance Board;

(2) how many disabled persons in need of constant attention because of their disability are receiving regular payments from the National Assistance Board.

Miss Herbison: I regret that this information is not available.

Miss Pike: Will the right hon. Lady please ensure that we get a survey to find out these numbers and accept that when we are talking about the burden of work on her Department we are not making a political point, because we know that the staff in her Department are dedicated and work very hard? Is she aware, however, that this job needs doing and that she should make certain that this survey is carried out so that we know the numbers involved?

Miss Herbison: The hon. Lady will be aware that we have done the field work of the survey on larger families and that at present that is being analysed. I am very much aware of the problems these people have, and I assure her that much thought will be given to how best we can help them.

Mr. Braine: Even if the numbers are not known, is it not an established fact that one in three of the permanently disabled and chronic sick in our hospitals could be sent home tomorrow if a realistic attendance allowance were paid? In view of this, and in view of the great savings that would result all round—and bearing in mind the humanitarian considerations as well—would not the right hon. Lady put a special review in hand to ascertain the true facts and the economies involved in this matter?

Miss Herbison: For some of the reasons I have given, it would at present be impossible to start any such review. However, I and the Government are just as concerned as anybody else to find out these facts. Indeed, we will want to

know them before we can decide what we can do for these people.

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many severely disabled people requiring constant nursing or domestic care, other than war disabled service pensioners or persons in receipt of industrial injury benefits, are living in their own homes.

Miss Herbison: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Astor: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the number must be limited? Does she not agree that it must be a farily small number that if these people are enabled to live at home, and if those who are in hospitals are also enabled to live at home, it will result in a net reduction in cost to the nation?

Miss Herbison: It is possible that there might be a net reduction, but if we take into account what might be termed constant attendance allowance and the other help which local authorities would have to supply in such cases, it is not all that certain that there would be the great saving which many of us once thought. But certainly these are matters which we are taking into consideration.

Single Women (Elderly Dependants)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what further steps she will take to provide social benefits for the elderly dependants of single women.

Miss Herbison: Proposals which will help those in this group who are most in need having already been made in the Ministry of Social Security Bill. We shall continue to take account of their position in the course of our general review.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of women looking after dependent relatives suffer great hardship? Would she bear their situation in mind, particularly in the next 12 months?

Miss Herbison: Certainly. Mostly these are single women, many of whom have had to give up their jobs. At present there are 9,500 of these women who are receiving an allowance from the National Assistance Board. The new provisions in the Ministry of Social Security Bill will


be of great assistance to those women and very often to the old people of whom they are taking care.

Dame Irene Ward: Is not this a suitable opportunity for the right hon. Lady to tell us when we are to have the results of this overall review?

Miss Herbison: The hon. Lady has asked that time and time again. She does not seem to have been aware of what has been happening in the House in the last year—and it is something of which we are very proud in our Department. Again I emphasise—and I hope that it will go home this time—that we have not been waiting until the complete review has been finished. In October of this year we bring in the earnings-related benefits to help the unemployed, the sick and the widowed. On 28th November of this year we bring in the provisions of the Ministry of Social Security Bill, which will help the non-pensioners about whom the hon. Lady is concerned.

Wage Stop

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proposals she will make to end the operation of the wage stop.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): This provision of the Ministry of Social Security Bill, now awaiting Royal Assent, was fully discussed when it was before this House, and I cannot usefully add to what was then said about it.

Belgium (Social Security Agreement)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she will seek to re-negotiate the social security agreement between Belgium and the United Kingdom so that contributors to the social security funds of one country are entitled to draw benefits in the other.

Miss Herbison: The existing agreement provides that, subject to certain conditions, benefit may be drawn in one country by virtue of contributions paid in the other. I have no proposals at present for negotiations with Belgium for a new agreement.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the case which I sent to her

Parliamentary Secretary in which a constituent of mine, who had lived for many years in Belgium, paying contributions, was denied unemployment pay when she came to this country? Does she not think that this lady has been defrauded? Will she think again about this most important matter?

Miss Herbison: I know of the case which the hon. Member has in mind. He knows from the correspondence that this case is at present sub judice. He is also aware that the reciprocal agreement is such that before a person either in Belgium or in this country may have unemployment benefit, that person must have worked and had at least one class one contribution.

National Assistance Board Staff (Overtime)

Mr. Hornby: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the amount of overtime necessary in the National Assistance Board to implement the provisions of the Ministry of Social Security Bill; to what extent this overtime is compulsory; and what steps are being taken to mitigate this burden by staff recruitment and more realistic allowances.

Miss Herbison: As I said in debate on the Bill a great deal of overtime will be needed to bring in the new scheme of supplementary benefits. Exactly how much cannot be estimated with any certainty before the new claims come in; but I have no doubt that the staff will do all that is required even at the cost of some personal inconvenience. Everything practicable is of course being done to ease the burden on the staff by recruiting reinforcements and suspending other work. The usual Civil Service rates for overtime will apply.

Mr. Hornby: Will not the right hon. Lady agree that prolonged spells of compulsory overtime are an extremely unsatisfactory practice in any business? Is this not just one more case of the Government failing to look ahead at all the administrative consequences of their own legislation?

Miss Herbison: Certainly not. When the Bill was introduced, and in the course of discussion on the Bill, I made it clear to the House, as I have made it clear in other quarters, that if we were to ease


the burden on the old, the chronic sick and the others who will be assisted by the Bill it would involve much overtime. But we are recruiting 1,100 additional staff, some of them casual staff. We shall also be easing ordinary work, for example visiting. I know that the staff are devoted people who will do everything possible to see that the work is shared fairly and that hardship does not arise.

Miss Pike: Does the right hon. Lady realise that she has not answered the Question? Has she looked ahead to the requirements of staff who will be involved in legislation which is coming forward? Would she not accept that whole situation will be greatly exaggerated by the demands upon her Department of the Selective Employment Payments Bill? Will she not run into great difficulties because of this?

Miss Herbison: No. We looked at all these matters. Knowing the staff—and I have met many of them—I am quite certain that, although they will have to work overtime, they are not trying to find political arguments against what the Government have been trying to do. My experience is that the staff have been as much concerned in their devoted service for these people as we, as the Government, have been concerned.

National Assistance

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what action she will take in the light of the recent report, "Financial and other circumstances of Retirement Pensioners", to ensure that those people who would be entitled to help from the National Assistance Board, but who do not apply for help, are given the necessary financial assistance.

Miss Herbison: The new scheme of supplementary pensions provided in the Ministry of Social Security Bill is designed to overcome the misunderstandings and reluctance which have prevented some elderly people from approaching the National Assistance Board for help. I am arranging a major publicity campaign for the new scheme this autumn, including Press advertising and individual invitations to all retirement pensioners to claim their entitlement.

Mr. Holland: While thanking the right hon. Lady for that full reply, may I ask her when she proposes to introduce this big publicity campaign? Does she agree with the suggestion in the Report that about 17 per cent. of retirement pensioners who are entitled to supplementary benefit are not getting it, and, in view of this, will she start her publicity campaign very soon?

Miss Herbison: Yes, Sir. The Report really proved what many of us had thought beforehand; that there were a great many old people who could have help. August would not be a good month to start the publicity campaign. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have given a great deal of thought to the matter and that we will be beginning the campaign some time in September.

Wage-related Pensions

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when she intends to introduce the Government's scheme for wage-related pensions.

Miss Herbison: Work is proceeding on the new scheme, but it is too early to say when it will be introduced.

Mr. Scott: The Minister must remember that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said during the General Election campaign, on 26th March, that the scheme would be introduced and be working this year. Is this just another pledge which is now being forgotten?

Miss Herbison: I expect that the hon. Gentleman meant to refer to my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. Even so, as far as I am aware no such statement was ever made by him, since we gave no such promise. The promise we gave was that the new scheme would be brought forward in the lifetime of this Parliament.

National Insurance (Tax Allowances and Benefits)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what action she is proposing to take to integrate tax allowances and cash benefits paid under National Insurance.

Miss Herbison: I have no such proposals at the present time. Naturally,


various problem about National Insurance and other social benefits which are being considered as part of the review of social security must involve consideration of the tax position as well.

Mr. Worsley: Would the right hon. Lady give an assurance that, when this review is completed, the Government intend to continue to make use of the system of tax allowances, which gives an incentive to the individual to help to provide for himself?

Miss Herbison: We said in our manifesto that we would be examining family allowances, National Insurance and tax allowances generally. No promise can be made at this stage, certainly until we have completed the work we are undertaking, particularly in this part of the review.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that Income Tax and Surtax allowances for dependants amount to over £500 million out of a total State benefit of about £750 million, and that it would be far better for her to envisage increasing family allowances so that those who need benefit the most obtain it and not those who have very high incomes?

Miss Herbison: When we discussed the Ministry of Social Security Bill all these matters were raised. At that time I made it perfectly clear where my own inclination was leading me. However, perhaps the House should know that one could not take away that £500 million altogether because a man's average wage is now about £20 a week and some people might be very badly hit. However, all these matters are being taken into account.

Single Persons (Supplementary Benefit)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on what evidence she based her decision to fix the rate of supplementary benefit for a single person at approximately 60 per cent. of that of a married couple.

Miss Herbison: The decision was taken in the light of long experience, in the administration of the present scheme, of the living expenses of people whose incomes need to be supplemented.

Mr. Worsley: Is the Minister saying, therefore, that she simply accepted the figure of 60 per cent. because it has been going on since the time of Beveridge and that the Government are doing no social research whatever to look into the relationship between these two benefits?

Miss Herbison: No, Sir. A detailed survey into the expenditure of various kinds of households receiving assistance has been carried out, not at the time of Beveridge but in the autumn of 1964. The findings of that survey confirmed that the proposed relationship is just about right.

Earnings Rule (Retirement Pensioners)

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when she will receive the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the Earnings Rule for retirement pensioners.

Miss Herbison: I cannot add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 2nd May.

Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Lady realise that this is becoming an urgent matter, because earnings have increased very substantially since the last increase in the earnings rule? Can she at least give an assurance that when she gets this report any proposals it may make will not be affected by the present freeze on earnings?

Miss Herbison: The National Insurance Advisory Committee has been regarding this remit as a matter of great urgency. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that that Committee is meeting today and tomorrow—something quite unheard of in August—to try to get its report to me as quickly as possible. The second part of his question will have to be considered by the Government.

Subsidiary Occupation Rule

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she is satisfied with the workings of the subsidiary occupation rule; and if she will make a statement.

Miss Herbison: The working of this rule in individual cases is a matter for the independent adjudicating authorities,


but I am re-examining the rule itself in the light of the changes in unemployment benefit introduced by the National Insurance Act, 1966.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Lady aware that difficulties sometimes arise in cases where people are working part-time on their own account, for example, on crofts or smallholdings, because their income is intermittent or uncertain? Will she bear such difficulties in mind in her review of the rule?

Miss Herbison: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER-GENERAL

Home Information Services

Mr. Marten: asked the Paymaster-General if he will take steps to improve the co-ordination of home information services; and if he will make a statement.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. George Wigg): No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the Department, what does he do? Does he have any responsibility for security? If so, can he explain why a temporary secretary was employed who was engaged to and subsequently married a card-carrying member of the Communist Party—and employed in No. 10 Downing Street? Was she positively vetted?

Mr. Wigg: I cannot see how this question arises out of the original Question. Questions about my responsibilities are matters not for me but for the Prime Minister.

Sir Knox Cunningham: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's Answer, "No", in the first case, can he not say what he has been up to in the last 18 months?

Mr. Wigg: That, again, is a question which should be put to the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is customary, I understand, under all Administrations that Ministers without Portfolio perform such duties as the Prime Minister may direct. That applied in the last Administration as in this. If hon. Members are curious as to my responsibilities, they should therefore ask the Prime Minister. On the point about my negative Answer, I have no responsi-

bility for departmental information. I have answered by giving the correct answer—and that is "No, Sir".

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the Question got on to the Order Paper if he has no responsibility for it, in view of the rules of the House?

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Lady has been in the House long enough to know that, whatever else I am responsible for, I am not responsible for the publication or the mustering of the Order Paper.

Mr. Marten: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Prescriptions (Dispensing Facilities)

Mr. Wallace: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to ensure, by legislation or otherwise, that dispensing facilities for prescriptions, either private or local health authority, should be provided within reasonable distance in all highly populated areas, particularly new housing estates.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): The Executive Council for the area would seek to secure the provision of National Health Service dispensing services where none existed in a highly populated area. My right hon. Friend does not think that legislation to direct the establishment of such services would be justified.

Pharmaceutical Industry

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Health what study he has made of the recent report prepared by the pharmaceutical industry, a copy of which has been sent to him, which draws attention to the relative stability of drug prices and to the contribution made by the industry to medical research and to the export trade; and whether he will make a statement regarding these facts.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I have no doubt that these


are among the matters being considered by the Committee of Inquiry into the Relationship of the Pharmaceutical Industry with the National Health Service.

Mr. Fisher: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that research expenditure by the industry is now running at over £10 million a year, that one in ten of its employees is engaged actively on research, that the industry's exports are running at over £70 million a year and increasing rapidly even now, and that these exports have risen by, I believe, 8½ per cent. in the first four months of this year compared with last year? Is this not a considerable achievement?

Mr. Robinson: I would not like to confirm or deny the hon. Gentleman's statistics off-the-cuff. It would be unwise for me to express an opinion as to the significance of these matters pending the report of the Sainsbury Committee.

Mr. Braine: Surely the Minister is aware of the highly creditable performance of the industry in the export sphere? Does he not agree that the increase quoted by my hon. Friend is well known—that in the first four months of this year the industry increased its exports by about 8½ per cent. compared with last year—and surely, particularly at this time, the right hon. Gentleman should give credit where credit is due to an important industry?

Mr. Robinson: I have never minimised the credit that is due to the pharmaceutical industry as a contributor to the export drive. I am happy to reaffirm that. I was merely unwilling to confirm off the cuff the figures which the hon. Gentleman quoted.

Dr. Summerskill: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a strong case for considering that the pharmaceutical industry, as a health industry, should be under public ownership, in view of the fact that the chief yardstick of success in the pharmaceutical industry appears to be making a profit out of ill-health?

Mr. Robinson: The terms of reference of the Sainsbury Committee are very wide, and I do not think the matter to which my hon. Friend has alluded would be excluded from them.

Brucellosis

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to make brucellosis in humans notifiable; and what is the estimate of the number of people affected by this disease during the years 1964 and 1965.

Mr. Loughlin: None, since notification would be of little practical value. Estimates of the number of persons affected by this disease in any particular year vary widely, but the Public Health Laboratory Service reported 124 cases in 1964 and 123 cases in 1965.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The Parliamentary Secretary should bring himself up to date in this matter. Is he aware that in March of this year 28 persons were being treated for brucellosis by one doctor alone in Macclesfield? Is it not absurd that measles should be made notifiable but not this devastating disease, which can last for months and years? What does his Department intend to do about it?

Mr. Loughlin: Our advice is that it is very difficult to recognise this disease and that, therefore, national or local notification would not be of very great practical value. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland are introducing a scheme for the eradication of brucellosis in animals, which is the real way of solving the problem.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In view of the scheme of eradication, surely it is only commonsense that the Ministry of Health should co-operate by trying to find out more about the incidence amongst human beings?

Mr. Loughlin: The matter is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman tries to make out. Of course, nothing is simple, but where we have the difficulty of diagnosis there is no possible value in having notification. We will co-operate to the fullest extent with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but, beyond that, there is nothing much we can do to make a really valuable contribution to the solution of the problem.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Whilst I agree with what my hon. Friends says, would it not be possible to get on with


some scheme of total eradication? Because this disease is difficult to diagnose in the first instance, it is not always treated with the seriousness it deserves, and I have reason to believe that there are possibly many more cases than we know about.

Mr. Loughlin: I would agree that it is necessary to get on with the scheme of eradication, and that is what the appropriate Department is doing. Any Questions on that issue must be referred to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

General Practitioners

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Health if he will give the total number of general practitioners in practice in England and Wales at the latest available date and the corresponding figure for 31st January, 1965.

Mr. K. Robinson: The number providing full general medical services was 19,957 at 1st April of this year and 20,207 at 1st January, 1965. Figures for 31st January, 1965, are not available.

Mr. Tilney: Does not the fall in the numbers worry the right hon. Gentleman? Does he not fear that there may be an increase in the emigration of doctors due to the freeze of pay?

Mr. Robinson: Any fall in the number of general practitioners is worrying, but I think that we should get this fall in perspective. This was a fall of 250 in the number of doctors, which is 1¼ per cent. of the total. I very much hope that nothing that has been announced by the Government will affect the emigration figures in the way the hon. Member fears.

Mr. Braine: Would not the Minister agree that these figures are very serious and mean an increasing number of persons per doctor in the Service? Can he indicate—all questions of pay and remuneration aside—what special steps he is taking to try to increase the total number of doctors coming into the Service? What is he doing, for example, about women doctors?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member is, of course, right—the solution to the problem is to get more doctors. I am glad to tell the House that the output of

newly-qualified British doctors from medical schools last year was 1,618 compared with 1,511 in 1964, and we expect that the output will increase each year hereafter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Hospital Staffs

Mr. Wallace: asked the Minister of Health if he will given an assurance that National Health Service hospitals for the mentally subnormal have not got on their staffs drug addicts, alcoholics or psychoneurotics; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: There are standing arrangements to ensure as far as is practicable that unsuitable persons are not employed in the care of patients.

Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement which was made last February at a national conference on mental health by a doctor in service has caused a tremendous amount of anxiety to the nurses and others employed in this very vital service?

Mr. Robinson: I know about that statement. It seems to me most regrettable that a general accusation of this nature should be made which reflects on the many devoted and hard-working staffs of hospitals for the subnormal.

Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester (Chaplaincy)

Mr. Rose: asked the Minister of Health what further representations he has received concerning the chaplaincy at Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Loughlin: Representations from the Ruridecanal Conference of the Cheetham Deanery and from the Secretary of the Readers' Board of the Diocese of Manchester have been carefully considered but my right hon. Friend sees no grounds to vary the decision conveyed to my hon. Friend on 11th May.

Mr. Rose: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for his courtesy in receiving a deputation on the matter, may I ask him whether he does not consider that a full-time chaplaincy is needed in what is, after all, the largest general hospital


in Manchester? Would he not, perhaps, reconsider the criteria that are laid down by his Ministry?

Mr. Loughlin: No, Sir. We cannot at this stage reconsider the criteria. As my hon. Friend knows, the criterion is 750 patients. In the case of Crumpsall Hospital, I understand that the hospital has about 600 Church of England patients, and consequently there is difficulty in appointing a full-time chaplain in those conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Sheffield United Tours Ltd.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Labour what requests have been made for advice or help from his Department in the dispute between Sheffield United Tours Ltd. and the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union; and what replies he has sent.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): In February this year, the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union, who were seeking recognition by this company, asked my Ministry to intervene. An official of the Ministry discussed this matter with the general manager and was subsequently informed that the company was not prepared to recognise the union. The union was so informed.

Mr. Hooley: May I first welcome back my right hon. Friend to the Government Dispatch Box and express the hope that he is now fully recovered? Is he aware that his reply will be a little disappointing, and may I hope that some further assistance will be given to gaining recognition in this dispute?

Mr. Gunter: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for his kind words—my joy is not entirely unconfined. I have the greatest sympathy with what he has said and with what the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union wants, but I have to emphasise here, as we have had to emphasise before, that in the last resort I have no powers at all to compel recognition.

Miss Pike: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how glad we on this side are to see him back, because we realise

that some sanity has returned to the Front Bench opposite?

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of unions, certainly the clerical staff unions affiliated to the T.U.C., have great difficulty in getting recognition from employers, and although we appreciate that he does not have special powers, would it be possible for him to consult employers generally over recognition of staff unions?

Mr. Gunter: I have already made known my views on the desirability of employers having another look at some of their attitudes to the white collar workers. As my hon. Friend will know, a Royal Commission is now giving special attention to this question of recognition.

Bevercotes Colliery, Nottinghamshire

Mr. Concannon: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the National Union of Mineworkers have not refused to let their members work at Bevercotes Colliery, Nottinghamshire; and if he will take this fact into account in taking steps to assist in the settlement of the dispute regarding the wages structure at the colliery.

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the dispute between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, who have refused to permit their members to work the Bevercotes, Nottinghamshire, pit, modernised at a cost of £18 million and which should have started production last October, he will instruct his conciliation officers to investigate the causes of the dispute with a view to reaching a settlement which will enable production to start; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gunter: I hope that production will start in the near future. Intervention by my Ministry would not help at present.

Mr. Concannon: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that our miners, and especially those in Nottinghamshire, are known throughout the country and Europe as leaders of mechanisation, automation and experimentation, and that to brand them as Luddites when they hold


all production records does them a great disservice? I was hoping that the spokesman for the Surtax payers, the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), would be here to dissociate himself from those remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only questions are allowed.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is the spokesman for the Surtax payers, and, whether or not it be true, would you ask him to withdraw that remark?

Mr. Speaker: The only way in which the hon. Gentleman was out of order was in making a statement instead of asking a question.

Mr. Kershaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was rebuked by your predecessor on one occasion for using Question Hour as an opportunity for making a personal reflection on a right hon. Gentleman opposite. Was not the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) doing exactly the same thing about my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), and should he not be asked to withdraw his remark?

Mr. Speaker: I have already ruled on the point of order which hon. Members raise.

Mr. Gunter: I quite understand my hon. Friend's remarks about the miners of the country and the contribution they have made. It is a pity that the finest automated pit in Europe is unable to start work.

FEDERATION OF SOUTH ARABIA (AIR ATTACK)

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandys (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the air attack which has been made upon the territory of the Federation of South Arabia and the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to fulfil their treaty obligations to defend the Federation.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): The High Commissioner has informed me that at

08.30 hours local time on 30th July two aircraft, believed to have been MiGs, appeared over Nuqub, in the Amirate of Baihan, from the direction of the Yemen. After making one high-level run the aircraft carried out two low-level strafing attacks on the town from a height of approximately 500 feet, one from the south-east and one from the north-west.
During the course of these attacks they fired 20 mm. cannon and ·5 machine gun, using a mixture of high explosive and incendiary rounds. Three Arab children were wounded and a total of 75 hits have so far been counted on houses in the town.
I am sure that the House will wish to express its sympathy with the victims of this savage and unprovoked attack and with their families.
Hunter aircraft are patrolling the area and our forces in South Arabia will continue to provide all necessary assistance in the defence of the Federation in accordance with our obligations under the 1959 Treaty.

Mr. Sandys: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that Her Majesty's Government's reaction is totally inadequate? If Nasser does not hesitate to attack South Arabia now, when British troops are still in Aden, is it not perfectly obvious that he will invade the country as soon as they are withdrawn? Does this not once again underline the utter irresponsibility and perfidy of the British Government in their decision to leave the Federation totally defenceless after independence?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has made that accusation of perfidy before and has never been able to make it good, and has not done so now.
As to the reaction of Her Majesty's Government, there are, of course, courses of action we can take which we are now urgently considering.

Lord Balniel: Will the Government make quite clear to the Government responsible for this violation that any further violation of South Arabian air space by military aircraft will result in those aircraft being shot down by British aircraft? As this equipment was provided by the Russian Government, does not this give added emphasis to


the importance of providing adequate air defence to the South Arabian Federation on its achieving independence?

Mr. Stewart: The House knows the assistance we are giving to the Federation on its achievement of independence. I am asking the Canadian and United States Governments, as the protecting Powers, to make protests to the United Arab Republic and the Republican authorities in the Yemen, and I am urgently considering what other action it may be proper to take.

Mr. Thorpe: The Foreign Secretary did not tell the House to what country these aeroplanes belong and whether or not there were any national markings on them. Can he assist the House? Was it the United Arab Republic and, if so, does he intend to make a diplomatic formal protest?

Mr. Stewart: As I said, the aircraft are believed to have been MiGs. Shell cases recovered have been provisionally identified as Russian. One may draw an obvious conclusion from that as to the nationality of the aircraft.

Mr. Allason: Would not the right hon. Gentleman confirm that had this attack taken place after the British withdrawal there would have been no protection whatever for these people who, at present, rely, and, in the past, have relied, on British protection?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot answer a question as hypothetical as that beyond saying that the House is aware of the assistance we propose to give to the Federation on its attainment of independence.

Mr. Maudling: Is not this the essential point: do the Government consider that the help they intend to give to South Arabia will be enough to enable it to defend itself against this sort of attack in future?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mayhew: Does my right hon. Friend recall similar attacks being made on Baihan under the Conservative Government without effective action being taken?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I think that that is in all our recollections.

Mr. A. Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give immediate consideration to retaliatory attack on all the airfields where the MiGs came from?

Mr. Stewart: I have said that I am giving careful consideration to what action we should take.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we are not prepared to undertake for all time the rôle of international military policeman?

Mr. Stewart: I think that is clear to all of us.

NIGERIA (DISTURBANCES)

Mr. Tilney: Mr. Tilney (By Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs how many Britons have lost their lives during the very recent disturbances in Nigeria, and whether there has been any damage to British property.

The Secretary of State for Common-wealth Affairs (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): I am sorry to say that one British citizen, who was caught in cross fire between opposing military groups, was killed.
Apart from this, our High Commissioner, with whom I have been in close touch, has reported no injury to British citizens or damage to British property.

Mr. Tilney: While I am sure that the whole House will have sympathy with the family of the deceased, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will see that whatever future Nigerian Government may evolve they will accept liability? Can he assure the House that all steps will be taken to safeguard British lives should disorder increase?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. Every opportunity will be taken to afford maximum protection to British lives and, in the case of the compensation that may be required because of the unfortunate death of the person concerned, representations, when possible, will be made.

PRICES AND INCOMES BILL

Mr. Grimond: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a


definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the transformation of the Prices and Incomes Bill into proposed legislation which has not been considered by this House at Second Reading.
I submit that this matter is certainly definite for the Amendments are now on the Notice Paper and that they fundamentally alter the character of the Bill. Even if they come within the Title they introduce an element of compulsion and interference with bargains freely arrived at which was not there before and which is quite alien to our legislation, at least in peace time. It is also contrary to the intention expressed by the Prime Minister in the House on 20th July.
I submit that the matter is urgent, for the Bill is now in Committee. I submit that it is certainly of public importance for these drastic proposals will, if accepted, affect everyone in the country. Yet they have not been considered by their elected representatives in this House. Standing Committee B has 25 Members, none of whom is a Liberal. This means that the Liberal Party and most hon. Members of all parties will have no opportunity whatever for discussing these most important proposals.
Therefore, I submit that the House ought to have an opportunity of discussing the implications of the problems of the Bill and whether, if we do not have a Second Reading, that at least the procedure of the Committee of the whole House should be used for the purpose for which it is expressly designed, to discuss a matter of the widest importance to all in the country, and that the new Amendments ought to be referred to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). With his usual courtesy he informed me that he might be seeking to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 9.
The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the transformation of the Prices and Incomes Bill into proposed legislation which has not been considered by this House at Second Reading".

Among the rules governing the acceptance or otherwise of an application under the Standing Order is that which prescribes that, when an ordinary Parliamentary opportunity will occur, the Motion cannot be put to the House. The House will find numerous instances of the application of this rule on page 365 of Erskine May. Nor can such a Motion anticipate events here or in Committee.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about this subject, but I think that I am right in saying that the matter cannot be dealt with by the procedure under Standing Order No. 9. The Amendments to the Prices and Incomes Bill, were, I gather, tabled on Friday, and their possible effect on the Bill will have to be studied by the members of Standing Committee B, to whom the Bill stands committed.
Standing Order No. 42, which deals with Amendments in Committee, entrusts the Standing Committee itself both with the powers and the duties respecting these Amendments. In particular, the Chairman of that Committee has full authority to rule them in order or out of order, and, as Speaker, I could not possibly venture an opinion on that matter or follow any course which might involve interference by Mr. Speaker in the work of the Standing Committee.
I cannot, therefore, allow the application to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 today.

Mr. Lubbock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that one of the reasons why you could not accept this Motion was because an ordinary Parliamentary occasion would arise on which these matters——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is not going to argue with the Chair. I have ruled——

Mr. Lubbock: I was about to ask for clarification——

Mr. Speaker: No. I have ruled very carefully and, I think, very clearly. I cannot accept it.

Mr. Lubbock: I certainly did not intend to question your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was about to ask you for a little clarification.
You said that an ordinary Parliamentary occasion would arise on which these matters could be debated. It is my understanding that an Amendment identical to one which has been debated already in the Standing Committee cannot subsequently be moved on the Floor of the House on Report. I wished to ask you on what occasion it would be possible to raise these matters on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not invite the Chair to go into details about the hypothetics of the future. I have ruled that this does not come under Standing Order No. 9. He must accept my Ruling.

Sir J. Hobson: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you assist the House by advising us how it is possible, when the Government introduce what amounts to an entirely new Measure, that the principles of it should be discussed upon the Floor of the House and not in Committee?

Mr. Speaker: As I have already ruled, this is not a matter for Mr. Speaker. If is a matter which must be raised in the Standing Committee to which the House has committed the Bill.

Mr. Heath: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for me to ask the Leader of the House to take account of the view, which has received considerable support on his side of the House as well as this side, that, by those Amendments, a new Bill is being presented to the Committee without Second Reading? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman bring the Bill back for a fresh Second Reading, or, alternatively, give us an undertaking that the new Clauses will be considered on the Floor of the House and not in Standing Committee?

Mr. Speaker: This is not a matter for the Chair.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Paget.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Speaker, if it should so happen that the Committee brings back a different Bill from that which was committed to it, can objection be taken here before the Report stage is proceeded with?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) must know that this Speaker, like all his predecessors, never rules on hypotheses.

Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While, of course, accepting your Ruling, can you assist the House and particularly protect the rights of backbenchers? We are in a situation in which nine new Clauses have been tabled, running into seven pages. Would it not be possible for the Leader of the House, having taken note of the feelings expressed on both sides, to seek your permission to make a statement which might assist the House at this stage?

Mr. Speaker: That again, as the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) knows, is not a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bowden. Notice of Motion.

Later—

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not rather unusual for anyone as pleasant as the Leader of the House not to answer a question which is put by this side of the House and by the other side?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) knows as well as anyone in the House that that is not a point of order for me at all.

Mr. Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is quite apparent, if I may so put it, that the House this afternoon finds itself in a very difficult and extremely dangerous position, one of the results of which we have just seen in that the Bill which was down to be referred to the Second Reading Committee has now been rejected by the House.* That is obviously because of the tension caused by the incidents over the Amendments to the Prices and Incomes Bill which are to be considered by Standing Committee B.
May I put it to you that the House is in a particular difficulty because it wants to consider what action it can take. Normally, Mr. Speaker is the custodian of the rights of all hon. Members in this
* Note: See col. 44.


matter, but whenever we refer a question to you we are told that the question is hypothetical and no guidance is given. May we ask you in which way we can obtain guidance as to how to deal with an important and critical situation which affects the whole country?

Mr. Speaker: I think, first of all, that the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) is unfair in suggesting that whenever the Speaker is asked for guidance on a point of order he treats it as something hypothetical.

Mr. Heath: If you wish me to withdraw, Mr. Speaker, I will. I was not saying "on every occasion". I was saying that this afternoon you have said that the situation is hypothetical.

Mr. Speaker: There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw. I was making my own comment.
On the issue itself, if the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will study the Ruling which I gave, the remedy is in the hands of those hon. Members of the House who are members of the Committee to which the Bill has been referred, where the matter will have to be raised in the first place. It is not a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Maude: I think that the difficulty in which we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker, is to know how, under the rules of order, a Standing Committee can discuss the principles of what is virtually a new Bill. That is what we want to know.

Mr. Speaker: I still rule as I did, that it must be raised in Standing Committee.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While accepting every word that you have said, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that you find yourself in a very difficult position. Over the years, when similar instances have occurred, it is usually the Leader of the House, who is responsible to private Members on both sides, who has come to the rescue of the situation. Today, he is funking it. Let him face up to it.

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

FAMILY PROVISION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Hogg rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I explain to the House the new procedure? If objection is taken to sending a Bill to the Second Reading Committee, and 20 hon. Members rise in their places, I must declare that the Noes have it.

Mr. Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this a debatable Motion?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Question put:—

Whereupon not less than twenty Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, MR. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS BILL

[3rd Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 21st July].

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

3.52 p.m.

The Chairman: I think that it will be for the convenience of the Committee to know how the timetable will operate today, in view of the extension of time from 3.30 p.m. onwards.
It is now 3.52 p.m. and the result is that the proceedings on Clauses 7 and 8 will be guillotined at 6.22 p.m., the proceedings on Clauses 9 to 12 will be brought to an end at 8.52 p.m. and the remaining proceedings will be brought to an end at 11.52 p.m.
May I also say that since the provisional selections were posted, as a result of representations that I have received I have given some further thought to the matter and I think that it will be for the consideration of the Committee if, on calling the first Amendment, No. 349, there are discussed with it the following Amendments: Nos. 144, 350, 90, 145, 142, 143, 95 and 172.
The result of that change will be that Amendment No. 142, in Clause 7, page 8, line 40, leave out from beginning to "subsection" and insert:
within 14 days after demand in accordance with",
will not be called separately, but Amendment 93 will be called and there can be discussed with it the Amendments provisionally selected to go with it other than those previously taken, and it will be open for a Division on Amendment 94 as well as 93 if so desired.

Clause 7.—(REGISTERS, CLAIMS, DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS, ETC.)

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): I beg to move Amendment No. 349, in page 8, line 36, to leave out from "section" to "registration" in line 37 and to insert:
for any contribution week falling wholly or partly before the date of".

This and Amendment No. 350, in line 38, leave out from beginning to "as" and insert:
for any contribution week",
are drafting Amendments. As the Clause stands, an employer who otherwise would be disentitled to a premium or tax refund by virtue of Clause 7(1,a and b) might be able to frustrate the intention of the provisions by delaying payment of contributions and, therefore, of tax. Thus, if tax due before the registration of the establishment were not paid until afterwards, paragraph (a) would be ineffective.
The Amendments would prevent the situation from arising. They would also avoid the necessity to consider the sometimes difficult question of fact of when the tax was paid, and would remove difficulties that might arise in cases where the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance had given permission to pay contributions after the date when they were legally due.
We have, for example, the stamping in arrears. This could cover a number of weeks that had been authorised by the appropriate Minister. These Amendments indicate that the tax, along with the National Insurance contributions, will be payable not in respect of a particular day or days, but in respect of a contribution week.
Amendment No. 349 is drafted to take account of this. By including the words "wholly or partly" it will make clear what the law is where the disputed period covers part of a contribution week. These two Amendments will have the same general effect as the Opposition Amendments Nos. 144 and 145, but will be more precise in their application. My hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be dealing with the other matters.

Sir John Hobson: I am sure that the Committee would like to welcome the Minister back again. We are delighted to see him. We are also delighted that he should be taking part for the first time during the proceedings on the Bill when the Guillotine has allowed the Government to explain any of their Amendments to the Committee.
We have so far had 24 Amendments from the Government, and these are the


25th and 26th. Throughout the whole course of the proceedings not one single word of explanation has been given to the Committee as to why the Government were amending the Bill or what these Amendments were intended to achieve, because of the severity of the Guillotine which the Government have imposed. We are very glad that the Minister should be the first to have the opportunity to exercise the privilege of explaining such Amendments to the Committee.
No doubt, it is very convenient for the Government not to have explained their legislation or their Amendments. We have already seen this this afternoon. They like to brush these things under the carpet. It is, however, an advantage to Parliament to have an explanation from the Government when Amendments, substantial or small, are introduced to legislation which has had a Second Reading and is then being altered.
In relation to Amendments 349 and 350, with which the Minister has dealt, we are grateful to him for adopting the points that we took in the Amendments which we tabled many months ago, and we are also grateful to the Government for putting them into a more convenient and more accurate form. To this extent, we welcome them. But I shall have to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against Amendment No. 350, not because we object to it, but because if it is passed, Amendment 90, which we regard as important, will fall, and, therefore, to vote on Amendment No. 90 we shall have to vote against No. 350.
I should like, therefore, to deal with the other Amendments which relate to a separate point from those with which the Minister has dealt. They are Amendments Nos. 90, 95, 142, 143 and 172. I think that I can put the point quite shortly. All these Amendments which we are discussing together deal with the exercise of the power of the Minister to give a direction to a citizen to keep records and the consequences for that citizen if he does not comply with that direction. Clause 7(1,b), which we desire to leave out, seems to us to introduce a monstrous and a wholly new principle, because when the Government have taken an enforced loan from the citizen

and Parliament has said that he is entitled to have it back again if he fulfils certain conditions, this paragraph proposes that he should be deprived of that right and of the right to have the whole of the repayment refunded if he does not obey an order of the Minister to keep certain records.
4.0 p.m.
The power of the Minister to order anyone to keep records is absolutely without limit. It is a Ministerial power to give any direction the Minister likes about the keeping of records. It is a power wholly outside the control of Parliament and wholly outside the control of the courts. If one does not do what the Minister says, one forfeits the tax refund or premium to which one would otherwise have been entitled, despite the fact that Parliament has said that one ought to have that money and is qualified for it.
This seems to me to be typical of the Bill. It provides that the taxation and the enforcement and the repayment provided for should be solely in the discretion of Ministers. Ministers are given an absolute discretion to give or withhold benefits under subsection (5). They are given strong administrative powers to order whether particular circumstances create a tax advantage or disadvantage. In Clause 1(2) they are given power to deal with research establishments and say who shall or shall not have a refund or a premium.
Under Clause 7(5) Ministers are given discretion as to how and when they make repayments, and under Clause 10 they are given complete control to marry or divorce establishments, to put them together and call them an establishment or to divide them and call them two establishments, as they please. All these powers are no doubt very convenient administratively. No doubt the Minister of Labour will find it convenient to operate the Bill in this way. But all these powers are given without Parliamentary control, without principles laid down in the Bill to guide their exercise, without publicity for their exercise if they are exercised, and without the citizen being able to know how they were exercised in other cases and whether justice is being done between him and his neighbour. This is another


example typical of the Bill, which has been devised as to most of its enforcement and administrative provisions for the convenience of the Executive and without consideration of the convenience of the citizens affected.
Clause 7(1,b) is not only objectionable in form, but wholly unnecessary. I will deal with those two points separately. First, it is wholly objectionable because there is no procedure whatever for con-rolling what records the Minister may require. He can give any order he likes, as extensive, as unreasonable and as impossible of performance as he likes, to any citizen to keep any records that he may think the citizen ought to keep.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: According to subsection (4), the records must relate to the payment of Selective Employment Tax. They cannot be of any other nature.

Sir J. Hobson: Within the framework of the Bill, of course, but they could be requirements to keep all sorts of records that the Minister thought he would like to see and they may be totally unnecessary to assessing the right to refund of the particular establishment.
We see in Clause 8 that the power to inspect is what is reasonably necessary for the Bill, but there is no limitation of that sort in these powers. It is not a provision to keep actual records as may reasonably be required. It is an absolute discretion for the Minister to give an order to any citizen to keep any records in relation to Selective Employment Tax and persons employed that the Minister decides, without the citizen having the right to say, "It is unnecessary. I keep my records in a different form. You can get what you want in some other way", or "I will keep these records, but I think it is wholly objectionable." While Ministers may sometimes be reasonable, it is not a general principle of legislation that one does not need to say that Ministers must be reasonable. Frequently, Parliament suggests that Ministers ought to exercise their powers within circumscribed limits.
If there is a dispute between the citizen and the Minister as to whether the direction of the Minister is sensible and proper or grossly onerous upon an

individual, there is no procedure for resolving whether or not the direction was proper. Nor is any procedure laid down as to whether the direction has been complied with. It is easy to see that a Minister might give a direction and say to the citizen "You have not complied with my direction by not keeping the records that I told you to keep, and so you will not get your money back." The citizen may say that he has complied with the direction and that his records are adequate having regard to the direction that the Minister gave, and he might claim that they were a fulfilment of the direction. He may say that the direction was vague and ambiguous but he has complied with it.
There is no way in which that dispute can be resolved except at the absolute discretion of the Minister, who may say, "I do not agree, and I shall keep your money." The citizen may say that he never got the direction and that it was probably lost in the post by the Postmaster-General, but there is no means by which that dispute can be resolved. Therefore, all these questions, which may on occasion be of considerable importance to an individual, remain in the sole and absolute discretion of the Minister, whose remedy is to keep the citizen's money.
My second point is that not only is the form of this Bill in this respect objectionable, but the provision that the Minister shall keep the citizen's money if he does not think sufficent records are being kept is wholly unnecessary. If the citizen has proper recourse to the courts or a tribunal—no doubt the Government will say that the citizen can always get his rights before a court or a tribunal; they will settle all disputed claims—then the citizen has to go off to the courts or a tribunal to settle the claim and will have to produce records and documents to show that he is entitled to the refund or the premium. The Minister does not need this additional power. He is still in a position in which he is entitled to say to the citizen, "I do not think that you have proved your case for a refund. Go to the tribunal or the county court and prove it." The citizen will then have to produce such records as he has, and if he has kept bad records he will not be able to prove his case.
On top of that, the tribunal that it is proposed to use, or the county court, if


that proposal is adopted, has powers of discovery, or can be given powers of discovery by regulation. In this circumstance, it is possible as a preliminary to a claim for a citizen to be required on discovery to give advance information as to his records, and there the case can be decided on the claim that the money is due.
Thirdly, it is wholly unnecessary because the Bill already provides that the citizen can already be prosecuted under Clause 8(2,d) if he withholds any material information. The citizen is liable on prosecution on indictment to a limitless fine or two years' imprisonment if he withholds any material information. On top of these three remedies, which would force the citizen to produce his records or make him liable to prosecution, why withhold his money?
We suggest that it might be enough to add, as we suggest in Amendment No. 172, that if the citizen refuses or neglects to produce or allow inspection of any records when he has been told to produce them by the Minister on proper notice, he should be guilty of a separate criminal offence. Therefore, if the Government want to force a citizen, they can prosecute him for refusing to produce the records on due and proper notice from the Ministry.
For all these reasons, I suggest that the power is unnecessary and that paragraph (b) introduces a wholly objectionable principle which has never previously appeared in tax legislation and certainly ought not to appear in a Bill of this sort, which affects not tax but the return of the citizen's own money which has been taken off him by means of a forced loan. In these circumstances, to give the Minister the power of the ultimate decision as to whether the citizen has observed a direction that the Minister has given and a power to enforce that by withholding the whole of the cash that the citizen would otherwise be entitled to is wholly objectionable.
For this reason, we want to vote against Amendment No. 90, and to do that we shall have to vote against Amendment No. 350.

Mr. Lubbock: I should like to ask one question and, before doing so, to say what great pleasure it gives myself and my hon. Friends to see the Minister

of Labour back in his place. We hope that he is now fully recovered.
I should like to ask the Minister, or his hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary if he is to reply, about the records which it is intended should be kept in respect of the payment of the Selective Employment Tax. I recognise that the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) is worried that the records will be more extensive than is necessary. Nobody wishes to create needless bureaucracy and difficulties for employers in obtaining the refunds or the premiums, as the case may be, to which they are entitled. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has rather exaggerated the possible use of the Clause by the Minister.
Subsection (4) would go a long way to reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman if, after "such records", the Minister would agree to insert "as may be reasonably required". There is no limitation on the powers of the Minister to require employers to keep any records which he sees fit of the payment of the Selective Employment Tax. As it stands, the phraseology might be thought to go rather too wide.
I said that I had only one question to ask but there is, perhaps, another which the Minister might like to deal with at the same time. If he wants to satisfy hon. Members on this side that he will not ask for information unreasonably, instead of the word "direct" at the end of the subsection he might put in "by order determine", so that any information which he required employers to produce would be subject to debate by the House before employers were faced with that duty. I shall be grateful if the Minister will deal with these two points when he replies.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I wonder whether the Minister will tell us why, as it appears, he has loaded the Clause so heavily against the taxpayer. Was that his intention in the first place, or was it merely that he desired a certain Clause to be drawn up in such a way as would give him reasonable powers of satisfying his Department that these sums were due to a particular taxpayer? The Minister will recognise that on the face of it, it appears that he is taking a


gigantic sledgehammer to crack a fairly small nut.
In this matter the Government, the Minister's Department and the Treasury are having the best of all possible worlds. They are collecting money from trading organisations and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) has pointed out, they will enjoy this money interest-free for quite a time. In due course, they will merely refund some of it to specified people.
It seems, on the face of it, that the Minister is taking very extensive powers, and, what is perhaps a little more objectionable to some of us, powers which are not accurately specified. That leads to uneasiness not only on this side of the Committee, but, I am sure, in the mind of anyone who studies the Clause.
Words of limitation such as those postulated by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) would go some way to ease the position. At present, however, the Minister has these additional powers. Besides the power contained later in the Clause and the penalties for withholding material information, he has also put in this exceptionally vague but powerful sanction. I hope that even at this stage he will reassure the Committee that he will look at the matter again. As the position stands, it could lead to great anxiety.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I should like to follow up what has been said from this side of the Committee. There is genuine concern at the very wide terms of subsection (4). Although Amendment No. 90 relates specifically to subsection (1,b), the objection to that subsection arises largely from the exceptionally wide terms of subsection (4). For my part, I cannot see the need, any more than can my hon. Friends, for giving the Minister such wide powers in a matter of this nature.
The whole object of the scheme is, in certain circumstances, to refund to the taxpayer the tax which he has paid and, in certain other circumstances, to add a premium also. If the Minister is given such wide discretionary powers under subsection (4), it could have the effect in certain cases of defeating the whole purpose of the scheme.
If the Minister makes totally unreasonable demands—there is no legislative restriction upon him against doing so—he could, in effect, exercise his further discretion under subsection (1) and say "I shall not give you anything back." I do not wish to appear naïve, but when the taxpayer has already parted with money the onus should be upon the Minister to justify refusing to pay it back.
It could, I suppose, be said that the Minister of Labour will not be in receipt of the tax which was initially paid, but this is a case where money will have been paid by the citizen, who under the legislation is entitled to recovery of it. Subsection (4) could deprive him of that right for technical reasons, the technical reasons being that the taxpayer had not complied with the specific directions given by the Minister under subsection (4).
Although one cannot draw too close an analogy between one piece of legislation and another, I recall that last year the House was considering the Highlands and Islands Development Bill, Clause 11 of which gave the Minister wide power to inquire of an individual a great deal of information about his business affairs, and so on. I agree that it was directed for an entirely different purpose, but in that case there was the qualification that the information and the records which the Minister could call upon a citizen to produce were what was reasonably necessary for the fulfilment of the Board's functions under the Act. An Amendment from the Liberal benches was accepted—an Amendment along similar lines from myself was not accepted—which gave right of appeal to the sheriff-substitute, the Act applying only to Scotland, to test the reasonableness of the demand which was made.
It would satisfy the concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side if subsection (4) were to be qualified by introducing the criterion of reasonableness, together with the incorporation of our proposal in Amendment No. 143 giving a right of appeal to a court of law to decide whether the call which has been made on the taxpayer by the Minister is a proper one to make. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will consider these suggestions seriously, because they are seriously intended.

Mr. Gunter: First, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for their kind words.
I shall deal only with the simple issue of the deletion of paragraph (b) of subsection (1). My hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary will be having something more to say upon the rather technical legal arguments arising from what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington.
I think that this has been an exercise in exaggeration. I had not thought that all these dreadful fears were in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Amendment would make it almost impossible to administer the Fund. The records that all employers registered for premium or refund are required to maintain, under Clause 7(4), provide the only convenient and readily accessible proof that an employer has paid the Selective Employment Tax for his employees.
The Amendment would deprive the Ministers of the sanction of withholding payment to an employer in respect of a period for which he failed to produce these records. We are bound to have records of some sort, and I should have thought that it would be obvious that by denying Ministers this convenient check on an employer's basic entitlement to receive payment one was opening the door to evasion, and that fraud would be facilitated.
Much play has been made about what would happen if an unreasonable Minister asked for all manner of information. Clause 7(4) lays down, as the hon. Member for Orpington mentioned, that the information relates to the payment of the Selective Employment Tax, and, therefore, the records that would be required would be bound to be comparatively simple. One could not go beyond the numbers that the employer had paid for, or their grades or status, or whatever it was. I cannot imagine any Minister going beyond the necessary information that he wanted for the compilation of the records upon which his action must then be based.
If we cannot require the employer to keep these records, and cannot have a

sanction against failure to do so, we are in trouble and, therefore, the fears of right hon. and hon. Members opposite are unjustified. This is the reasonable course for us to take.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I should like to answer briefly the points raised on Amendments Nos. 142, 143, 95 and 172, which, following your Ruling, Sir Eric, have been grouped with the other Amendments at the last moment. These are the Amendments which raise the suggestion that the power given to the officials of my right hon. Friend's Department to inspect and copy records should be exercisable only on giving 14 days notice.
I am sure that the Amendments are put forward with the best of intentions, but in our view, if they were accepted, they would become powerful instruments of fraud and evasion. I am sure that no hon. Member wishes to achieve that.
In the ordinary way, one would not expect to have to use these powers dealing with the ordinary law-abiding firm. But the powers of this nature are given in order to arm the authorities in dealing with that very small minority who deliberately try to make use of provisions of this kind to defraud and to practise a fraud upon public funds.
In these cases, it is essential that the officials should have the power to come and demand confirmation of the claims by inspecting records without notice. In the normal course, it would only be where they suspected fraud that they would call without giving prior notification. There are plenty of precedents for this approach in other fields.
Under the Income Tax Acts, for example, the Revenue has power to require a person who has made a return to deliver copies of accounts and make his books available for inspection, and officials can inspect and take copies of extracts from rate books. It has additional powers to view and examine, with skilled assistance, land or property chargeable to tax.
These are the sort of powers normally only exercised on notice, but there is the power which is used occasionally to use them without notice. Under the National Insurance Acts, there is power to make examination and inquiry of persons and


require them to furnish information and produce the records. Again, there is no requirement for a 14 days' notice. Under the Wages Councils Act there is power to enter premises of an employer to whom a Wages Council Order applies to require him to produce the wage sheets and other records, very similar to the kind of information which would be required here, and inspect material parts of records, again without a requirement for prior notification.
Under the Factories Act, 1961, factory inspectors have power to enter and examine premises and require the production of documents, again without notice, and there are similar powers under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963. I hope that with these explanations the Committee will be satisfied that it is perfectly proper to include in the Bill provisions for these powers to be exercised without notice.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington opened by saying that this was the first occasion upon which the Guillotine had allowed the Government to explain their Amendments. I would only remind the Committee that it is because of the way in which the Opposition have chosen—it is entirely a matter of choice for them—to exercise the very adequate amount of time given to them that we have discussed so few of these Amendments. If they choose to have long and, for some of us, wearisome and repetitious debates, it is entirely a matter for them.
We have had adequate time to give them explanations. No doubt the real reason is that the Government's Amendments have been so obviously satisfactory that they have not wished to discuss them, or they would have arranged their timetable to be able to do so.
Whatever other precedents there are, this is the first occasion when I have know a Front Bench speaker on the other side to participate in a debate and then to walk out without explanation immediately afterwards. Knowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman as I do, I am sure that there is good reason for his leaving, but it is not usual without explanation.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Another precedent to which one can refer is the fact that there is not a single back

bencher present on the opposite side of the Chamber. In view of the importance of what we are discussing, that strikes me as a very bad precedent.
I do not wish to take up the point about the swoop on the documents, because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, disagreeable and distasteful as this practice is, there are precedents for it, and it may be necessary. I want to revert to what the Minister said about the reasonableness of the form in which the records may be required. It must be borne in mind that a great number of quite small and fairly illiterate employers, some farmers, perhaps, and people who have not had the benefit of very great education, will be entitled to a refund.
It is not just a question of the firms. It is a question of a very large number of people who, perhaps, employ one or two workers, and, therefore, it is a matter of great concern to see that the records are in a form that is the simplest consistent with the administration of the Act.
That being so, although I should certainly not accuse this Minister, and I think no future Minister, of deliberately complicating the requirements in order to keep the cash, there is always a danger in the bureaucracy that there are a lot of well-intentioned economists who find that these records will be useful for statistical and research purposes in subsequent years, not merely for the purpose of seeing whether someone is entitled either to refund or premium, but because they think that it would be a useful moment to increase the store of knowledge of the statistics of our economic life by requiring people to keep rather more complicated records than are necessary for the prime purpose of the Clause.
4.30 p.m.
We have had this before, in other sections of Government administration. It is a very natural and reasonable desire. I do not say that it is wrong. In many respects, our statistics are woefully inadequate. But it is not right when one is using such an enormous sanction as this, the sledge-hammer of the withholding of money due to the taxpayer, to complicate the necessary return by consideration of the need to complete national statistics or other worthy research purposes.
There should, therefore, be inserted in subsection (4) the provision suggested by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and others that only such records are required as are reasonably necessary for the prime purpose. This is not a large demand to make. If words such as those, inevitably conveying an objective rather than a subjective test, were included, it would follow that the test of reasonableness would be one open to the courts and not one following merely the Minister's ipse dixit. It would follow the normal principles of construction.
The Amendment would be quite small and it would be so eminently reasonable that I cannot understand why the Government resist it, unless they feel that they have not the time to put it in owing to the muddle into which their timetable has got. That can be the only motive. What can the objection be otherwise? If the Minister were to say that he would, on Report, move such a small Amendment, we could get on to discuss something else, and the Financial Secretary's gibes about our mismanagement of the time at our disposal would fall to the ground.

Mr. Ian Percival: I find the replies of the two Ministers quite unsatisfactory for certain simple and non-technical reasons. If those replies show anything, they show what a morass one falls into the moment one embarks upon an exercise of this kind, a morass of impositions placed one after another upon the subject.
First, it is said what the subject must and must not do. Then, people have to be given power to see whether he does or does not do it, and for that purpose they must have power to enter and inspect and the like, and, as the Financial Secretary said, if they suspect fraud, to go along without any kind of notice and pry into the subject's affairs.
Against this background, it is not the right approach for the Minister to suggest that our worries are exaggerated. When an exercise of this kind involving such impositions upon the subject is embarked upon, it is a matter for fear and for watchfulness to see that no impositions are put upon the subject save those that are absolutely necessary. My fears

were in no way lessened by the Minister's frequent use of the word "convenience". Whose convenience was he considering? Entirely the convenience of the Administration. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are much more concerned about the convenience of the taxpayer.
This is the repayment of money already taken from the taxpayer. The taxpayer is to have his own money back. Would it not be far better to start from the point of view of the convenience of the person who should have his own money back? What is the convenience of that person as regards the keeping of records? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said—simple as the proposition is, it is none the less good for all that—that it would be quite sufficient to put upon the taxpayer seeking the return of his money an obligation to satisfy the Minister by reasonable proof that he had in fact paid the tax.
If that were done, the taxpayer could suit his own convenience. He would know that he had to keep some records such as would afford every prospect of getting his money back. That would be a perfectly adequate safeguard for the Minister, but would leave it open to the taxpayer to keep such records within that limit as were most convenient to him.
That must be the right approach, because——

Mr. Gunter: Mr. Gunter indicated dissent.

Mr. Percival: The Minister wags his head, but I was pausing only for breath before going on with my "because". If he waits till I have finished the sentence, he will probably agree. He is not as unreasonable as all that. He is reasonable enough to appreciate that there may be arguments on all sides.
The Minister will be paying taxes back to an infinite number of people conducting their business in an infinite number of fields and in an infinite number of ways within each field. How will he devise a form of records suitable to them all? Some of them could do with the simplest possible records. Others will need more complicated ones.
Basically, this is a question of approach. I should be a good deal happier if there had been some indication, just a teeny-weeny indication, in the


speech of either Minister that he was considering the convenience of the taxpayer and not simply his own convenience in the midst of the problems which the Government have heaped upon their shoulders by setting about this exercise. Even at this late stage, it would be an indication that they had some regard for the convenience of the taxpayer if they were themselves to bring forward a small Amendment about reasonableness.
If the Minister is right, he is giving nothing away. He says that he cannot imagine an unreasonable Minister. It seems that his imagination has left him for a moment. I think that he can probably remember several, let alone imagine them. But, if he is right and if no Minister will be unreasonable about it, why not make sure of it? He will lose nothing in getting all he wants. Let him accept some such words as, "such records as are reasonably required for the purpose of", or the like. That would be some indication that the position of the millions referred to here is being considered as well as the position of the Government.
It would also be an indication that the Government were taking this matter seriously and having some regard for the taxpayers whom we all represent if the Financial Secretary were to forbear from such cheap gibes as those with which he ended his speech. If he calls eight minutes directed to the effect of this tax on the oil industry as spending too much, or even enough, time on one subject he has peculiar views.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the time allotted by the Government to discussion of this tax gives anything like adequate time to consider the very serious effect which it has on my constituents in a hundred different ways, he has very curious ideas about time. If he has such curious ideas about that, perhaps the country will soon come to realise that he, like all his colleagues on the Front Bench, has some very curious ideas about government as a whole.

Dame Irene Ward: I am delighted with the speech which has just been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). I thought it a very sensible, sound speech, though my own view is that all Ministers, Socialist and Conservative alike—and Liberals, if there

ever are any Liberal Ministers—like collecting statistics. My trouble is that they never collect the statistics which I want; the things which I should like collected they do not bother about, and I think that men like collecting statistics far more than women like collecting statistics.
However, I rose because I could not resist answering the gibe made by the Financial Secretary when he commented about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) after my right hon. and learned Friend had spoken for the Opposition. If I had been leading on the Front Bench I would have responded a hundred times, especially after the way the Minister responded to the request we made for information. I think that the Financial Secretary, who is generally very polite, would have been better guided if he had refrained from making a nasty little gibe like that. It was rather lucky for him that I was not sitting on the Front Bench, because I should have done a jolly sight more about it than our shadow Minister.
However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, whom I, too, am very pleased to see back, will respond to the case which has been put forward. I can recollect speeches being made in the country by every single Member of both parties demanding that we collect statistics. There are far too many statistics, and I sometimes wonder what happens to them, and whether it is the case that the various Ministries get waste paper payments for the waste paper they sell by keeping on adding to the number of statistics they collect.
That is all I have to say. I am delighted to have had the opportunity of, I hope, giving the Financial Secretary one straight from the shoulder.

Mr. Gower: I would add one other point for consideration by the Minister of Labour. In his remarks he used, I think, the words, "We are bound to have records of some sort". The trouble about it is that this does not give us any idea of what sort of records, or of what requirements there may be which may change from time to time in the future.
The usual excuse given for rather vague and extensive powers is that the powers


are very difficult to define. That is the reason given usually, but in this case the Minister himself signified that the requirements would be relatively simple—the number of employees in relation to whom the original tax had been paid, some proof that the money had been paid, the names of the persons, possibly.
These are relatively simple and I should have thought, as an alternative to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), that it would have been possible for the Minister to have specified these particulars. These will not change from time to time; I cannot see how they would be different in six months' or a year's time from what they are immediately; and the sort of information required would be very much the same from month to month and year to year. I would think that this was capable of a fairly simple definition, but the Minister is making no definition.
We should like the right hon. Gentleman to define in some way the definite requirements, because, after all, these inquisitions are being made on all sorts of people, whether they are running small firms—or farms, as my hon. Friend suggested—and who are increasingly harassed by the enormous number of interrogations there are about Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax, and so on. Here is just another record which they have to keep.
Against that background, I hope that the Minister can agree with us that it is not unreasonable to ask for this additional clarification.

Mr. Wylie: I wonder whether I may remind the right hon. Gentleman what it is that we are asking for. It is that the exceptionally wide powers in subsection (4) should be restricted, and not encourage or make it easy for anyone to evade this legislation or to defraud the Revenue of what it is entitled to. It is no good the Minister of Labour saying that giving the Minister very wide powers does not matter, as he will not abuse them. Surely it is our duty to scrutinise the kind of powers given to Ministers of whatever political complexion; and if the powers are unnecessarily wide, as they are, then it is our duty to restrict them.
I would have thought it the simplest thing in this case to restrict the wording of subsection (4) of the Clause in the way which we have suggested, and acceptable to the scheme of the subsection, and I would ask the Minister to give it very serious consideration. If the Minister requires this kind of information as being necessary to satisfy himself that this tax has been paid and properly paid, then I would have thought that that could have been achieved by the sort of wording which has been suggested, and that it would have been competent for the Minister to have done that. In certain circumstances, as my hon. Friend suggested, there may possible be enormous expense for the taxpayer himself.
4.45 p.m.
It is all very easy, in this day and age, to make life as simple as possible for the Executive, but we have to remember the taxpayer's position. I should have thought that it would have been impossible to have eased his lot, even if slightly, in this way, and that it was the duty of the Government, as it certainly is of the Committee, to try to do so.
I am sorry that I disappointed my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), but if I did not trouble to reply to the Financial Secretary it was because I thought the best way was to ignore his remark about my right hon. and learned Friend——

Mr. MacDermot: It is a perfectly normal courtesy for anyone who speaks in debates here, particularly from the Front Bench, and who cannot be present to hear the reply, to acquaint the other side of the reason.

Mr. Wylie: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows my right hon. and learned Friend well enough to know that he had a sudden call for which he had to leave and that otherwise he would not have dreamt of any discourtesy.

Mr. Gunter: What puzzles me about the last half-hour of the debate is the desire of hon. Members opposite to have this reasonable little Amendment to subsection (4) when it was not put down and we are not discussing such an Amendment. However, I will certainly look very carefully at what has been said here this afternoon on the question of


whether subsection (4) may not carry "reasonable" in it. I see no reason why I should not look at it.
I am sorry if there is any suspicion of Ministers. When I spoke I was thinking of reasonable Ministers. I think that it would be almost 50 per cent. of those on the Opposition Front Bench who have been my predecessors in office. I have always found them reasonable.

Mr. Wylie: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate and agree with me that our concern about subsection (1,b) is that it is intimately bound up with subsection (4), and that as long as subsection (4) stands as it does we feel, and, I think, with justification, that that paragraph (b) should not be allowed to stand?

For these reasons our proposal is that that paragraph should come out altogether.

Mr. Gunter: I will certainly read what has been said. I think that this emanated from the thoughtfulness of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who suggested a certain word for subsection (4). I have said we will look at it again.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause, put and negatived.

Question put, That the proposed words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 135.

Division No. 150.]
AYES
[4.50 p.m.


Albu, Austen
English, Michael
Jeger, George (Goole)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ennals, David
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Allen, Scholefield
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Anderson, Donald
Fernyhough, E.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Finch, Harold
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Beaney, Alan
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Bence, Cyril
Floud, Bernard
Kelley, Richard


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Foley, Maurice
Kenyon, Clifford


Bessell, Peter
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ford, Ben
Lawson, George


Binns, John
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Bishop, E. S.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Ledger, Ron


Blackburn, F.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Booth, Albert
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lomas, Kenneth


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Gardner, A. J.
Luard, Evan


Boyden, James
Garrett, W. E.
Lubbock, Eric


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Garrow, Alex
McBride, Nell


Bradley, Tom
Ginsburg, David
McCann, John


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacDermot, Niall


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gourlay, Harry
McGuire, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gregory, Arnold
Mackie, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackintosh, John P.


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maclennan, Robert


Chapman, Donald
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Coe, Denis
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Manuel, Archie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mapp, Charles


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, J. J.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dalyell, Tam
Hannan, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Haseldine, Norman
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hazell, Bert
Moyle, Roland


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Henig, Stanley
Murray, Albert


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Newens, Stan


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Hooley, Frank
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Delargy, Hugh
Hooson, Emlyn
Norwood, Christopher


Dell, Edmund
Horner, John
Ogden, Eric


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Dickens, James
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oram, Albert E.


Dobson, Ray
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Orbach, Maurice


Doig, Peter
Howie, W.
Orme, Stanley


Donnelly, Desmond
Hoy, James
Oswald, Thomas


Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hunter, Adam
Paget, R. T.


Eadie, Alex
Hynd, John
Palmer, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Ellis, John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pardoe, John




Park, Trevor
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wallace, George


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Weitzman, David


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wellbeloved, James


Pentland, Norman
Slater, Joseph
Whitaker, Ben


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Small, William
Whitlock, William


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Price, William (Rugby)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Stonehouse, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Redhead, Edward
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Rees, Merlyn
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Richard, Ivor
Symonds, J. B.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Thorpe, Jeremy
Winterbottom, R. E.


Roebuck, Roy
Tinn, James
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Rose, Paul
Tomney, Frank
Woof, Robert


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tuck, Raphael
Yates, Victor


Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Urwin, T. W.



Ryan, John
Varley, Eric G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sheldon, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
loan L. Evans.


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Heseltine, Michael
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Astor, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Peel, John


Balniel, Lord
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Percival, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Biffen, John
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Body, Richard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott, Nicholas


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Lambton, Viscount
Sharples, Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Corfield, F. V.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Costain, A. P.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Temple, John M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tilney, John


Dance, James
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McMaster, Stanley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Marten, Neil
Vickers, Dame Joan


Eden, Sir John
Mathew, Robert
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Ward, Dame Irene


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Goodhew, Victor
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, William


Grant, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Worsley, Marcus


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nott, John
Wylie, N. R.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Hn. George


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Hawkins, Paul
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Francis Pym and




Mr. Peter Blaker

Amendment made: No. 350, in page 8, line 38, leave out from beginning to "as" and insert "for any contribution week".—[Mr. Gunter.]

The Chairman: The next Amendment selected is No. 351.

Sir J. Hobson: On a point of order. Sir Eric, are we not taking Amendment No. 93?

The Chairman: That is being taken, but Amendment No. 351 comes before it.

Mr. Gunter: I beg to move Amendment No. 351, in page 9, to leave out lines 12 to 15 and to insert:
it appears to that Minister (or, if the matter is referred by the employer to a tribunal under subsection (6) of this section, to that tribunal) to be equitable in the circumstances to allow".

The Chairman: I think that it will be convenient if, with that Amendment, we discuss the following Amendments: No. 91, in page 9, line 4, after "may", insert:
subject to subsection 6 hereof".
No. 92, in page 9, line 13, after "of", insert:
or refusal fully to ante-date".
No. 352, in page 9, line 41, leave out from "to" to "falls" in line 42 and insert:
the date as from which any establishment shall be deemed to have been registered, or as to the amount, if any, which".

Mr. Gunter: This Amendment will enable employers to refer to tribunals disputes as to the date from which an establishment shall be deemed to be registered under subsection (2) of this Clause. I think that it will achieve the purpose of the Opposition Amendments Nos. 91 and 92.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move Amendment No. 94, in page 9, line 21, to leave out from "to" in line 21 to "may" in line 22 and to insert:
any convenient County Court or Sheriff Court, that Court".

The Chairman: I think that it will be convenient for the Committee if, with that Amendment, we discuss the following Amendments: No. 96, in page 9, line 30, at end insert:
or if any such direction or demand is referred by the employer to any convenient County Court or Sheriff Court, as that Court may direct".
No. 98, in line 41, leave out from "Act" to "the" in line 43.
No. 100, leave out lines 45 and 46 and insert:
County Court or Sheriff Court convenient to the place in respect of which the question arises".
No. 102, in line 46, at end add:
or in the case of any employer claiming under section 5 of this Act, then to and by a County Court or Sheriff Court".

No. 153, in line 46, at end add:
or in the case of any employer where qualifying activities fall within section 2(3)(c) of this Act or are related to fishing, then to and by an Agricultural Land Tribunal or, in Scotland, by the Land Court".
No. 104, in line 46, at end add:
(7) Where any question under section 5 of this Act or under this section may be referred to or decided by any County Court or Sheriff Court, there shall be an appeal therefrom on any question of law to the Court of Appeal or to the Court of Session.
No. 154, in line 46, at end add:
(7) Immediately after the determination of such tribunal any employer, if dissatisfied with the determination as being erroneous in point of law, may declare his dissatisfaction to the tribunal.
(8) The employer having declared his dissatisfaction, may, within 30 days after the determination, by notice in writing addressed to the tribunal, require the tribunal to state and sign a case for the opinion thereon of the High Court or, in Scotland, of the Court of Session as the Court of Exchequer in Scotland.
(9) The case shall set forth the facts and the determination of the tribunal and the party requiring it shall transmit the case, when stated and signed, to the High Court within 30 days after receiving the same, thereupon subsections (4) to (9) of section 64 of the Income Tax Act 1952 shall apply to any such case stated as if it were a case stated under that Act.
No. 167, in line 46, at end add:
(7) If any question arises under section 1, 2, 4, 5 or 6 of this Act as to whether any and if so what payments of selective employment tax have been paid or as to the employer by whom such payments were paid or as to the contribution weeks or as to the employed persons in respect of whom any such payments were paid, that question shall be referred to and determined by any convenient county court or sheriff court.
No. 168, in line 46, at end add:
(7) If any question arises as to whether any and if so what amount falls to be paid to any employer under section 1, 2 or 5 of this Act that question shall be referred to and determined by any convenient county court or sheriff court.
No. 105, in Clause 8, page 10, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).

Sir J. Hobson: This group of Amendments raises two major questions. The first question of principle is what questions should be decided by the courts or a tribunal, and what should be left to the absolute discretion of the Minister. The second principal problem is whether disputed questions, whatever they may be should be decided by the county courts or sheriff courts or, as has been provided


by the Bill, by the industrial training tribunal?
The point at issue is whether under the Bill as drafted, there are certain questions which the citizen is prevented from having determined by any court or tribunal at all, and whether he is not being placed too much in the hands of Ministers and submitted to the decision of the appropriate Minister or his officials. And are there not, perhaps, some points at which the citizen has no rights at all to have recourse to the courts for a decision?
I submit that there are four points where the Bill prevents the citizen from having an independent decision and leaves the matter to the Minister, and where this ought to be remedied.
First, in all cases where there is no dispute as to the amount which is due to be levied, the question whether an employer or some other person should have the repayment may be one of considerable importance because it may be the employer who has paid the money but put the refund over to an assignee or to the liquidator, or to some other person. There may well be a question as to the person to whom the refund ought to be paid and is due. In the case of a liquidation or a trustee in bankruptcy, the Inland Revenue might have a priority claim in the liquidation or bankruptcy and it might be important from the Government's point of view that the money should not be paid back to the bankrupt employer or the liquidated company but should be paid to the person who would give priority to the Inland Revenue.

Mr. MacDermot: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make clear to which Amendment he is speaking?

Sir J. Hobson: This arises under Amendment No. 167 which says:
If any question arises … as to whether any and if so what payments of selective employment tax have been paid or as to the employer by whom such payments were paid or as to the contribution weeks or as to the employed persons in respect of whom any such payments were paid, that question shall be referred to and determined by any convenient county court or sheriff court.
It is in relation to that that there is a problem, and I do not think that the Bill deals with it. The Government may be in some difficulty as to the exact per-

son to whom the repayment ought to be made, and the Ministry ought to lay down a procedure by which that question can be settled.
The second question which might arise is the date or the period in respect of which payments were made, there being no dispute that certain amounts had been levied, as to the amount. There may be payments which have been made in bulk originally. To that extent an employer may have made a bulk payment and it may not be wholly clear to which contribution weeks his payments which are to be refunded refer. Different rights may arise as between an assignee or somebody else on a bankruptcy, and it may be that some question will arise about the contribution weeks in respect of which the bulk payments were made by an employer.
Thirdly, there is the topic which we have discussed—and this, I think, comes under one of my other Amendments—namely the direction of the Minister about the keeping of records and whether a direction is reasonable. The Minister has got this point and has promised to look at it. We are grateful to him for that, and I mention it only in passing.
Fourthly, there is the question whether the citizen has failed to comply with a direction which had been given. It may have been a reasonable direction but there may be some doubt about whether that direction has been complied with. Therefore, I submit that under the formal drafting of the Bill there are a number of questions which may well arise between the citizen and the Government and for which there is not provided any reference to any tribunal. I would have preferred to have seen the straight general question whether the citizen was entitled to a refund and if so, how much, remitted to whoever is to decide issues because that leaves all the preliminary steps and all the necessary questions of fact and of law on which a claim to a refund is founded to be decided by whichever tribunal or court is deciding that question.
The second question is whether it is right to leave to tribunals under the Industrial Training Act, 1964, the decision of such issues as are remitted for independent decision when they arise between an employer and the Minister. I can see that there may be strong arguments in


either direction, but subject to anything that the Financial Secretary may have to say on this matter, at the moment I strongly prefer the right of resort of the taxpayer to the ordinary courts. We suggest that these should be the county courts in England and Wales and the sheriff courts in Scotland. The ordinary courts are much more numerous and more easily available to the citizen. One tribunal is to deal with England and Wales and one with Scotland—no doubt based in various localities.
No doubt one will be in the Highlands, with which my right hon. and learned Friend will be dealing. There is one tribunal at Inverness, but by 15th July it had no employers' representatives on its panel, and it was not ready to operate. There are two in Wales—one in Cardiff and one in Colwyn Bay—but the Colwyn Bay tribunal, by 15th July last, had on it no employers' representatives.
If we take England, we find that outside London there are only five centres north of the Trent and six south of it. That does not begin to compare, in terms of convenience and availability, to the numbers of county courts which are available for people in case of dispute. It is surprising how far some people would have to go in some areas of England. In East Anglia, they would have to go to Norfolk, Lincoln or London; in Kent, Surrey and Sussex they would have to go either to Southampton or London. In Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Leicestershire, Nottingham shire, and Derbyshire the centres are based on London, Lincoln and Birmingham only.
This shows the extent to which the tribunals are based on the great industrial centres, and how the interviewing areas are almost uncatered for by these tribunals. It may be possible for the secretaries of the tribunals to arrange for them to assemble in different parts of the country, in remote areas, but it would be a great waste of effort for them to be specially assembled in order to try single cases in remote areas, whereas the ordinary citizen could easily turn to his local court.
I do not think that the questions which will arise and which ought to be tried will affect large companies in the centre of Birmingham, Manchester or London;

they are more likely to concern small people, whom the Standard Industrial Classification has ignored—who do not fit into the ordinary provisions of the classification—or of whom the Minister, when instructing the draftsmen, was not aware, and overlooked. Many problems may affect small individuals, and these should be tried in the ordinary courts.
Secondly, the tribunals themselves are probably inexperienced. We do not know a great deal about their functioning, and looking through the list of chairmen one would have said that the vast majority are people of seniority who may have become county court judges if they had been members of the Bar, but who have not yet become members of the Bar, and to this extent it would be as well to rely upon county court judges.
There are 500 ordinary members of the panels of tribunals, and these change very frequently. The Minister of Labour gave that as one reason for not listing them all forthwith. But they are all drawn from the great industrial centres and cannot have a great deal of knowledge of farming, forestry, fishing or charities, which are the sort of subjects in respect of which problems will arise and will have to be decided, on the question of refunds. If all the members are drawn from the great industrial centres they will have little local knowledge about the large areas of country between our industrial centres. No member of a tribunal resides in my division, and none resides in the counties of Oxford, Buckingham, Bedford, or Northampton. I have not gone through any others, but it shows that the selectivity of members of these panels is fairly concentrated.
County court judges, on the other hand—and I have no doubt that the same consideration applies to sheriff-substitutes in Scotland—acquire a considerable knowledge of local conditions, industries, problems and employment, and a considerable expertise in the immediate problems of the areas of their courts.
Another point in favour of county courts is that industrial training tribunals have no qualified clerk—no person who can take hold of the proceedings. It will all be left to the chairmen. In the preliminary proceedings there is a startling difference. The preliminary proceedings before the tribunals,


at any rate in England and Wales, are controlled by the secretary in London, at the Central Office of Industrial Tribunals, and under the Regulation any preliminary proceedings about any claim, or defence to the claim, or particulars of the claim, or discovery of the claim must be done by way of a letter sent to the Central Office.
An odder way of conducting a possible investigation into a dispute in, say, the North Riding of Yorkshire than for the respective parties to have to write to the secretary in London asking him to decide whether or not certain preliminary procedures should be undertaken, I cannot imagine.
5.15 p.m.
If, as I hope, regulations are made providing powers of discovery and other necessary preliminary proceedings in respect of complicated cases, apparently there is no machinery or officer who can carry it out except the secretary of tribunals in London. Certainly, the local branches of these panels have no facilities and no experts, unless everything is to be put upon the shoulders of the chairmen, which will be quite wrong, because they should have to decide the cases, and not prepare them.
Finally, legal aid is provided for in the case of county courts, but not before these tribunals. I appreciate that there may be arguments the other way. I appreciate that the Ministry of Labour may be anxious to extend the influence and importance of these industrial training tribunals, but that ought not to be the object. The object should be to see that what is best for the citizen and best for the Government in settling disputes under the Bill is achieved.
Difficult questions may well arise. Some may arise in relation to large plants, which may involve matters of principle affecting a whole industry, in which case it is very important that the facts should be determined and that the first determination should be in the best possible form. For this the county courts would seem to be eminently suitable, and our Amendments propose that there should be an appeal on a point of law from the county courts.
Many of these cases will concern small men who have been overlooked by the

Bill and by the Standard Industrial Classification. They may be marginal cases, affecting a baker in Leamington, or another such person, to whom the question whether he will get a premium or a refund, or nothing at all, will be of considerable importance, and who may well, in some instances, wish to raise some difficult and tricky questions on the interpretation of the Bill. I would have thought that the ordinary local county courts could deal with such questions.
Another source of litigation is likely to arise if the local Ministry of Labour official begins to operate the Act so as to try to prevent the Government from making repayments unless he is satisfied that payment should be made. Indeed, that will be his duty. Gradually, he will extend the area in which refunds are not made. No doubt it will be said that he would not do it under the present Minister, but we know that the Bill must be administered locally, and that cases often arise where some local officials take a stricter view than others. It is in relation to such cases that local county court judges could protect the citizen.
I cannot see why local county courts should not decide whether a citizen should get back money which the Government have taken from him, and which Parliament is providing should be paid back to him in certain circumstances. For these reasons, I would recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should insist on these Amendments, subject to anything which the Financial Secretary may say.

Mr. Gower: It is rather curious that this part of the Bill goes into the sort of detail which is absent from subsection (4) which we discussed in connection with an earlier series of Amendments. Whereas that one gave just the statement about the record, this one attempts a slight definition. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) has clearly shown the case for further definition about points which could easily arise, although I do not for a moment suggest—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would not suggest—that there will be a vast number of these disputes. Nevertheless, there may be some, in certain circumstances.
In the widest sense, my right hon. and learned Friend would not, I am sure, object to the term "successor in title" in relation to the first possible grounds for disagreement. While there may be no dispute as to amount or as to particular employees, the fact remains that, the tax having been paid, it will be a successor in title who is concerned about the repayment. That term would, of course, include the purchaser of an establishment or the son of or a person who has taken over from a deceased person, or a receiver, in the case of liquidation or bankruptcy.
On the question of whether the citizen has complied with a direction, I respectfully submit that this may be a matter of great importance. I recognise that Government Departments seem to think that they are the repositories of superior wisdom in this matter, and that they would be the last to do the citizen out of his or her proper rights; however, in a dispute between the citizen and a Department of this kind, although the citizen should not have an unfair advantage, he ought to be treated with every possible fairness.
The Amendment would ensure that this matter was considered by the court or tribunal. In justice, it should be. The Government Department may say that, in its view, the citizen has not complied, but this is often a matter of reasonable doubt. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not close his mind to the importance of this issue.
On the question whether the reference should be to the county court and, in Scotland, the sheriff court or to a tribunal, my predilection is for the county court or sheriff court——

Mr. Archie Manuel: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the great distances and great county court areas, especially in the Highlands, but I would assume, with out being certain about it, that tribunals would operate in the larger towns in these areas, where one would have to travel great distances to the county court.

Mr. Gower: In the case of Scotland, the hon. Gentleman will see, if he refers to the Amendments, that in every appropriate case where we refer to Scotland, we include the term "sheriff court" as

well as reference to the county court in England.
My right hon. and learned Friend made some pertinent remarks about the comparative areas of the courts and the industrial tribunals. The balance is, therefore, once again on the side of the courts. He made a strong case for preferring them. I prefer the courts in matters of this kind, unless there is some overwhelming technical reason for preferring the tribunal, because, in disputes between an ordinary citizen and the State, although there is not the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive in this country which there is in some others, nevertheless, there is always in my mind, and, I hope, in those of many hon. Members, a feeling that it is a matter of some pride to us that our judiciary has in general remained more severely apart from the executive than have tribunals in general. There is a greater separation of powers between the judiciary as a whole and the executive than between some of the tribunals and the executive.
A citizen who is aggrieved in a matter of this sort and who goes before a county court can feel that he is going before a body which is, I would not say more impartial, but more detached from the subject under consideration. In addition to the excellent and cogent reasons advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend, I would put forward this reason. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider it sympathetically.

Mr. MacDermot: The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), who told me that he could not stay to hear my reply, suggested that this series of Amendments raised two types of issue: first, which issues should be determined by an eventual appeal to a tribunal or the courts and which should be determined finally by the Minister; and, secondly, for those where there is to be a right of appeal, to what tribunal the appeal should lie.
With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that these Amendments raise the first points. It appeared to me that he was seizing the opportunity of the debate to raise those points which are not raised in the Amendments. In an intervention on his very


first point, I asked him to which Amendment he was speaking. He said that it was Amendment No. 167, but with respect I do not think that it deals with the point which he was discussing.
What he suggested was that there were four cases in which, at the moment, there is no right of appeal to the tribunal, in which he thought the final decision lay with the Minister, and he said that there ought to be a right of appeal. Because I do not think that the Amendments raise these points, I cannot give a final and authoritative answer to his questions, but I will certainly give the Committee my reaction, for what it is worth, to this matter.
First, he suggested that, where there is no dispute as to the amount but there is a dispute as to whether the payments should be made to a particular employer or to some other person, there is no provision for that issue to be determined. If the issue is merely to which of two employers it should be paid, that is covered by Clause 7(6), which refers to an amount, if any, which falls to be paid to any employer. Therefore, the question as to the identity of the employer would clearly be an issue and a matter which could be appealed.
If it is a question of the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as to whether he may have assigned his right, either voluntarily or by the operation of law—as in liquidation or bankruptcy—that would surely be a matter of general law for the general courts and not an issue to be determined under proceedings of this kind at all. If the initial right of an employer had been established and someone else intervened and said, "I have an assignment of those rights," this would be a matter to be determined by the ordinary law of the land——

Mr. Gower: What about the slightly different circumstances, those in which, after a person has paid the tax, the business has either been assigned or has passed, by operation of law, to a descendant? If that descendant or successor in title hopes to obtain the repayment, would there be any difficulty then with the Department?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: It must depend on the terms of the assignment. If there is a dispute, in effect, between the original employer and the assignee about entitlement to payment, and notice is brought to the Minister's attention of that dispute, it is the kind of thing which would be determined in the ordinary way by court proceedings. I do not think that special provision is required in the Bill.
The next kind of proceedings to which reference has been made is that in which the date or period in respect of which payments were made was in dispute. I think that this would be covered
or as to whether any, and if so, what amount falls to be paid … under section 1, 2, or 5".
Payments under those Sections would be payments in respect of a particular period and, therefore, a dispute of that kind would be appealable. Thirdly, the hon. Member referred to a dispute whether any direction of the Minister is reasonable. This is harking back to the debate which we had on subsection (4). My right hon. Friend has said that he will look at that new point which has been raised.
The fourth point was whether the citizen has failed to comply with a direction under subsection (4). Again, I think that that is covered by subsection (6), because unless he had complied with a direction, he would not be able to establish his right of payment, and therefore the issue whether the amount falls to be paid to any employer would include an issue about whether he had complied with a direction.

Mr. Percival: I follow the argument that it may be said that all these are matters which have to be considered when we consider the words in subsection (6)—
whether any, and if so what, amount falls to be paid …
In that respect all these may be conditions precedent in one way or another. I see that there may well be some substance in that argument. But if that is so, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that a little clarification would help? In the time available before the next stage, if subsection (6) is intended to cover all this, would he consider whether it would not be possible and better to add a little clarification?

Mr. MacDermot: I confess that that is not my reaction. If the draftsman has, happily, found a simple form of words which is wide and all-embracing, attempts to refine it and spell it out tend, if anything, in their effect to be restrictive. It is better to leave it with the wider words. But if any hon. Member differs from that view, and thinks it right to put down an Amendment on Report, we will gladly consider it.
I turn to the main issue, whether the industrial tribunals are the right appellate tribunals in these issues or whether it would be better to have them tried by the county courts. Let us look, first of all, at the nature of the jurisdiction, which is surely much the most important aspect here. The issues involved will be mixed questions of law and fact in which a knowledge of the operation and workings of industry will obviously be of great advantage, as will legal knowledge. There will be such issues as disputes about the number of employees who are employed in the establishment and the nature and the extent of the activities in which they are employed.
It is argued that the constitution and the existing jurisdiction of the industrial tribunals renders them particularly well fitted to exercise this jurisdiction. As has been pointed out, they have a legally qualified chairman, who sits, usually, with two lay members from panels which have been set up by the Minister, again after consultation with representatives of both the employers and the employees. Their present jurisdiction, first, is under the Industrial Training Act, where they deal with appeals on disputes as to the levies to be paid by persons assessed by the industrial training board under that Act.
This raises very similar issues to those which will arise under the Bill—issues as to whether the employer and his employees are engaged in activities falling within the definition of a particular industry. It goes further, which is interesting, because the liability to pay the levy under the Industrial Training Act is assessed on the basis of establishments within the standard industrial clasification. Again, the liability to pay will depend upon whether the number of employees in an establishment is such

that an establishment can be said to be wholly or mainly an establishment within a particular classification. This is precisely the sort of issue which one expects to be most likely to give rise to disputes and appeals. Consequently, these tribunals are very well fitted—one might almost say tailored—to be able to decide this kind of issue.
They also have to determine other issues concerning the status and identity of employers and employees. For example, they have to determine questions as to redundancy payments and rebates to employers under the Redundancy Payments Act and questions about the terms and conditions of employment under the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963. These tribunals have gained the respect of both sides of industry.
Particular criticism was directed—and it is reflected in one of the Amendments—in suggestions that these tribunals would not be experienced or suited to deal with disputes in agriculture. I would remind the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is about to set up an industrial training board for the agricultural, horticultural, and forestry industries—for those who like to apply "industry" to those activities. I am not sure, personally, that I do. But, in any event, for this purpose they are being treated as an industry and will have their own industrial training board. Consequently, the same kind of issue as I have mentioned under that Act will be referred to these tribunals, and I am assured that there is no shortage of public-spirited people in agriculture who have come forward and are ready to serve on these panels.
The land tribunals, which have been suggested as an alternative tribunal in this respect, deal with very different sorts of jurisdiction and are chiefly concerned with disputes between agricultural landlords and their tenants about their terms of compensation and other issues arising out of agricultural tenancies. I do not think that they would be any better fitted to determine this class of issue than would industrial tribunals, particularly when they have these new responsibilities in agriculture.
Other administrative arguments were submitted in favour of county courts. It is true that at present more county courts


than tribunals are sitting, but, obviously, we will want to see how this works out in practice. One can only guess at the number of appeals there will be, and there will be provision for the payment of expenses of people who must travel to where the tribunals are sitting to attend hearings. However, the places where the tribunals will sit are not yet fixed and, naturally, we shall be taking as reasonable a view as possible in trying to meet the convenience of all concerned.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised a procedural point about the preliminary proceedings which, he said, at present must be dealt with by letter through the Central Office. I will gladly look into that matter with my right hon. Friend. We want to see that a convenient procedure is evolved to enable people to raise any preliminary matters in that way with the tribunals. Naturally, the procedure will have to be the same for the whole country, and that is why any changes in procedure should be effected by the secretary of the London tribunal, but I will look into the matter. For these reasons I must advise the Committee that, having carefully considered what is the better form of tribunal, and having regard to the nature of the issues involved, we feel that these industrial tribunals provide the best way to do this job.
The third question raised by the Amendment is a right of appeal on points of law. That is already provided for under the Bill as drafted. Any decisions of the industrial tribunals will be final on questions of fact, but there will be a right of appeal to the High Court on points of law, and a similar right of appeal, in Scotland, to the Court of Session.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: These industrial training tribunals, as they are called, are still very young. They were created in 1964 and although one or two further tasks have been put upon them since, their original function was extremely limited; that is, to hear appeals from employers who thought that they were being loaded too much in the Government's admirable endeavours to get industrial training centres going. Before that Measure, it had so often happened that certain employers did not pay their full

whack towards the general business of industrial training in this country.
That was, of course, a limited task and one much more of fact than of law. The Financial Secretary rightly said that in the Bill there will be questions of mixed law and fact, and although that might have been true under the 1964 Act, it was surely much less true in the sense that the question of how much levy an employer should pay for the expenses of an industrial training board was much more a question of fact than of law.
Here we are dealing with a taxation Statute. There is no doubt that it is that, whatever it may be titled. It is notorious that in taxation Statutes dealing with taxation spreading over millions of people, and not just a few who would come under the 1964 Act, there will be many questions of law. It is true that under the Government's proposals there is an appeal allowed on a question of law from the industrial training tribunals, but is it not better to avoid some of the necessities of those appeals by having the question originally decided by a court of law, which can have its decision reported so that people know what is decided?
5.45 p.m.
It may be that these industrial training tribunals will also have their decisions reported. I do not know. However, they are not as widely reported in, say, the local Press as decisions of the county courts would be on these important matters that affect a very large number of people, and by no means only industrial people. Under the Bill, not only employers of industrial labour will be concerned, but all those people who come under Clause 6, apart from many cases dealing with charities, agriculture, forestry, and so on.
Although we are told that an industrial training tribunal is to be set up for agriculture and forestry, it seems unnecessarily overloading and changing the work of these tribunals to give them something which, I have no doubt, in time they could do, but which the county courts are now eminently fitted to perform—that is, the task of deciding what is or what is not "an establishment".
Involved in this are such questions as what is the result if one drives a tunnel under a road or constructs a bridge over a road. Does one thereby create a single


establishment out of two or, alternatively, create two establishments out of one? On the other hand, if one builds a wall down the middle of a bay in a factory, what is one creating? These are fundamental matters of law, according to the correct definition of "an establishment". It is unnecessary to deviate in a taxing Statute from the system of the law courts of this country unless it is absolutely essential to do so.
I am not one of those who, laudator tempores actae, say how disgraceful it is that successive Governments should have set up tribunals for special purposes, in many cases where they have not been necessary. However, if it is not necessary, then such tribunals should not be established and although the Financial Secretary made a plausible case in saying that these tribunals were being tailored for this purpose, I beg to differ. They are tailored for their original purpose of deciding how much certain employers should pay for industrial training, which is a relatively small matter compared with the enormous taxation being levied and to be refunded, sometimes with premium and sometimes without, by the provisions of this Bill.
I have a deep suspicion that this proposal springs from an unconscious dislike of the independent judiciary. I would not accuse the Financial Secretary or the Minister of harbouring such unconscious feelings, but I feel that somewhere lurking in the machine is this dislike and I wish that the Financial Secretary and his right hon. Friend would examine their consciences and be clear that deep down somewhere someone else in the machine does not feel this way.
There is no reason why the county court judge should not decide what is an establishment and why he should not decide all these questions, including those which the Financial Secretary rightly said, contrary to the fears of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), were appealable. It seems to me that those things, such as whether an assignment has been made, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, whether, on the death of an employer, who the proper successors in title should be—all things which the courts of law decide every day and which the industrial training tribunal never does—are the sort of thing that

will have to be tried by whichever tribunal is finally chosen. One has only to name those things to see that a court of law is the right place.
I beg the Financial Secretary and the Minister of Labour to think again on this point. As I say, the industrial training tribunal system is very young and, at present very small—and rightly so, because it has not had a great deal to do, important though the work it has done has been, but almost immediately, within six months, when this Bill starts to operate there will be great pressure.
It is always at the beginning of the operation of a Bill—before there are precedents, and before people know where they are, what an establishment is, who qualifying workers are, and so on—that there is pressure of work. After a few cases have gone, perhaps, on appeal by case stated, and there is an authoritative decision, the pressure falls off, but in February and March of next year the pressure will be very considerable.
I do not want to harp again on the haste with which the Bill has been drafted and the difficulties of discussing it because of the Guillotine, but obviously, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted, there will be many rough edges. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said over and over again in these debates that this is a tax and that we must solve the refunds on the tax by experience—solvitur ambulando, he said, though not in those words, time and time again.
One way of dealing with it solvitur ambulando, will be to go to this tribunal, but I doubt very much whether the structure of the training tribunals, set up for a totally different and much smaller purpose, and even though recently expanded slightly, would be anything like enough. On the other hand, we have the county court system there, extended over both countries, well designed and equipped for the purpose, carrying legal aid and with registries in the county courts which are most helpful and extremely full of advice for the subject, who may be quite a small man and unable to afford much in the way of advice, about how to serve his writ, and so on.
It seems to me that, from the mechanical point of view alone, it would in this case be unwise to divert from the


normal system of appealing against taxation or appealing for refunds of taxation. Though, as I say, I acquit the two Ministers now present of any desire to remove jurisdiction from the regular courts of the land. I would not say the same of their colleagues. For the reason of convenience, for the reason of principle, and particularly because of the likely rush of business in the early months of next year before these tribunals can conceivably be extended and proliferated over the length and breadth of the two countries, I think that the Government should think again here, and then give the county courts this work.

Mr. Percival: I want very briefly to support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and very earnestly to ask the Government to take another look at this very big question—because it is a big question—of whether appeals from the Minister should be to the court or to the tribunal.
I understand that the Minister of Labour, with his long and distinguished trade union background, probably just does not like lawyers or courts. There is, regrettably a deep-rooted suspicion of both. This I can understand, but I ask him particularly to put that suspicion out of his mind. It may be that his association with his hon. and learned colleagues has done a good deal to shift this deep-rooted feeling, but I should like to give another little prod and so help him get rid of a little more of it.
When considering this very important question, we must be quite sure of the premise from which we start. What are we looking for here? We are looking for a machine for resolving disputed questions of law and fact. Perhaps I may ask the hypothetical question: why do we so often go about looking for some different tribunal for some complicated answer when the simple answer is staring us right in the face?
What do lawyers and courts exist for? I ask that question in this context knowing that I have the floor and that I can answer to my own question, but I am glad to be able to do so, because there is a point here that should be made over and over again. Lawyers and courts, and the law which both exist to help in

administering, have one purpose only—they are a service. They do not dictate or govern anything—they are there to provide a service, and that service, so far as is relevant to this debate, is purely and simply the resolving of disputed questions of facts and law. That is what we are talking about. It is being supposed and foreseen that there may be some of these disputed questions to be settled. I ask again: why should we go outside? The established courts have the respect of the whole land. When this remedy is there staring us in the face, why do we not just accept it, and not go outside?
The Financial Secretary has given one or two reasons for choosing these tribunals instead of the courts. He says that they will be dealing with disputes, with numbers of employees, and the circumstances in which they are employed, and who shall have repayment, and so on, and that the industrial trading tribunals are very suitable tribunals for deciding these issues; that they will have some sort of special expertise that will enable them to do so. But I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman—not now, but later on, when these debates are over—to consider whether there is anything in that argument.
If we take the argument far enough, are we not getting to a point in each different field where we must have different courts? We have had very broad distinctions for years but, within those very broad distinctions, judges have dealt with an infinite multiplicity of different kinds of cases and different points of law—I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to intervene? I will give way to him if he so wishes?

Mr. MacDermot: All I was saying was "with varying degrees of success." But, putting the point seriously, I think that there have been other fields where people have thought that it would be of assistance to judges to have specialist panels for resolving certain issues rather than having to decide them themselves, as at the moment. I think, for example, of damages in personal injuries cases.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Percival: The Financial Secretary is talking about something different. The question of how the measure of damages should be decided, and whether it should


be dealt with separately from the trial of liability, merely involves evolving a new machinery, if a better one can be found, within the existing framework. That does not alter the point I am making, which is that our courts—with a large measure of success—deal with a multiplicity of different issues of fact and different issues of law.
I commend to the Minister the proposition that it is sometimes a very good thing for a court to be dealing with a multiplicity of issues, because then it does not come to the subject with preconceived ideas. The purpose of the court and of the judge is to listen to the evidence directed to him, not for him to make up his mind on what he conceives from his own knowledge to be the facts.
There is not much, if indeed anything at all, in the first point made by the Financial Secretary, that these courts will have a special kind of expertise which will make them better able to deal with this kind of question. He said that the other difficulties postulated by my hon. and learned Friend could be overcome. I daresay they could. We could have some provision for payment of expenses of people going to hearings. Incidentlly, would the Financial Secretary say whether by "expenses" he means costs as well? Does "expenses" mean fares, or also the expense of paying a lawyer to plead a case? If it means only the former it is a very small concession. What will be needed by people who appeal from the Minister's decision, in many cases, will be very good advice and very good assistance.
In the county court all this exists without anyone doing anything further. There a person who cannot afford to pay for these things would simply get legal aid. The Financial Secretary said that there were not enough industrial courts and that their procedure was not suitable for dealing with a substantial number of queries, but why should the Minister make extra work for himself when all that is in existence already in the county courts and ready to be used? Let no one underestimate the importance of the number of courts which are available. These cases will involve oral hearings where they involve questions of fact.
In the county courts there are all the facilities and the court officials, and so

on, available. If there is to be an appreciable amount of work for these courts, where will they sit and what sort of facilities will be provided for them? If there is not to be a appreciable amount of work why not distribute it through the county courts which are already there?
I emphasise the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on the question of publicity. There should be publicity for two reasons. Many people will be interested in the decisions of the courts on appeals from the Minister. They will be interested because the decision on a particular case may be of assistance to them either in connection with a case they have themselves or to enable them to avoid running into difficulty in future. It is of interest and importance that decisions made in these cases should receive very wide publicity from the point of view of their usefulness.
It is also very important that they should receive wide publicity for another reason. If the Minister is making decisions from which citizens have a given right of appeal this fact should receive publicity as well. The Minister who is concerned at the moment may well think temporarily that if that is to happen the less publicity there is the better, but I am sure that the Minister is able to see the matter in its wider context. He will agree that it is important, when Ministers are given such very wide powers, as they are given by this Measure, that their actions and the appeals should be subject to close scrutiny and the course taken should be one which will best enable people to know what is going on. That can be done with the greatest ease by having these cases heard in the ordinary courts, because there they are under the closest scrutiny from newspapers and so on.
There are many other points relevant to this matter, but I shall not deal with any of them. I ask both Ministers to have another look at this question before we come to the next stage of the Bill because there is a very big precedent of principle involved. To say the least, the arguments are very far from being on one side only.

Mr. MacDermot: Perhaps in deference to the very thoughtful speeches made


by hon. and learned Members opposite, I may be allowed to address the Committee on this matter again. The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) asked why we should go to another tribunal for complicated answers when a simple answer is staring us in the face. I was led to wonder whether some non-lawyers would think that the simple answer would be obtained from a tribunal rather than from a court of law, but I will give a more serious answer.
On the question of publicity, it is the practice already for the decisions of these tribunals to be reported in the reports published by the Stationery Office. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend to continue that practice, because, clearly, it is of the greatest importance that decisions of these courts should be available to those concerned and that they should be widely reported.
Certainly, as the hon. and learned Member said, in the early stages there will be important decisions on principle and that will be done. There is another aspect of publicity. The hon. and learned Member made the point that in effect, whatever it is in form, this is a taxing Statute. I ask him to reflect upon our system for determining issues for the payer of ordinary Income Tax. There we have a special tribunal, the General Commissioners, who command great confidence and are qualified to look at practical problems which arise and to reach determinations on questions of fact which are final. Then there are appeals by case stated and other means on questions of law.
This is the analogy we are following. These tribunals have the power to sit in public, but their normal practice, in the exercise of their present jurisdiction, is to sit in private unless the person concerned—not the Minister but the other party—wishes the case to be heard in public. I am given to understand that that is the procedure which it is expected they would follow in exercising this jurisdiction.
Clearly, if the person concerned wants the publicity the case can be heard in public, but if it is a matter which does not affect the general public why should it have the glare of publicity? There is a natural reluctance for county courts to

sit in camera and they would not do so in cases of this kind. That is how the argument works the other way. The procedure does not stop full publicity being given to a decision on a point of law.
On the question of legal issues in the early days, there is bound to be much publicity. Even if we made the county court the tribunal for this kind of court, these are the sort of issues which would be likely to be appealed on a point of law. The higher court would have to settle the point. That court would make the decision whichever way was chosen. One then thinks of other cases which do not raise crucial questions of law, most of which will be going into questions of fact and a good deal of figures; they will be cases which an ordinary judge would want to refer to a referee or to the registrar and will not want to be bothered with going into a mass of figures and the arithmetic that will arise.

Mr. Gower: The hon. and learned Gentleman drew a very interesting and in many ways fair analogy between commissioners concerned with tax matters and these tribunals, but there is one big difference. In most cases before commissioners, the commissioners are considering the personal tax affairs of citizens up and down the country which those citizens wish to be confidential. In these cases, on the other hand, they will be considering the possibility of the State withholding the repayment of tax which has already been paid, and, in a sense, there is no reason why the State should want the matter to be confidential.

Mr. MacDermot: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I do not want to press the analogy too far, but one may find in these inquiries that there is a degree of commercial confidentiality involved, such as the number of employees working on a particular process, which the employer may prefer not to have the glare of publicity.
Turning, finally, to the example quoted about the tunnel or bridge kind of case, I hope that we shall not have that issue to be decided any more, as a result of the Amendment to Clause 10(3) which is designed to obviate that sort of problem.
I think that I have said enough to answer the arguments. I can only end by assuring the Committee that we gave the most careful thought to the serious


considerations which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have raised, and we came to the conclusion that, looking at the whole matter, this was the better solution.

Mr. Wylie: As most Members have made clear in the debate, it is very much a matter of impression. I can appreciate the force of the arguments which the Financial Secretary has made, though I do not agree with them. The tribunal system has worked well in those circumstances for which it was designed. The question is that, should a tribunal which was set up initially to decide levies under industrial training schemes be used to interpret a tax Statute. I am unhappy about how it will work in Scotland. The panel has only 32 members, 25 of whom are in Glasgow, five in Edinburgh and two in Inverness, and presumably the two in Inverness will be dealing with the whole of North Scotland. I do not see how it will work. However, we are anxious to get on with the Bill. The Guillotine will fall shortly and, for that reason, we will not vote on this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move Amendment No. 97, page 9, line 35, leave out from "be" to end of line 37 and insert:
a debt due from the Crown which shall become payable on the expiration of three months from the date upon which the employer or the charity paid the selective employment tax in respect of which the claim is made and shall be recoverable from the Crown as a debt due from the Crown in accordance with the Crown Proceedings Act 1947".
It is fairly obvious that the object of the Amendment is to raise the right of a citizen to get back from the Government the money which the Government have taken from him under a compulsory loan, and to provide that the citizen shall have a right to get it back and shall not get it back simply at the discretion of the Minister.
At the moment, the Bill is one of the most remarkable that I have seen. When Parliament has said that the Government shall in certain circumstances pay money back to the citizen who has paid it, the concluding part of subsection (5) of Clause 7 reads:
and any such payments shall be made at such times, in such manner, and subject to such conditions, if any, as the Minister concerned may with the consent of the Treasury determine".

It is a monstrous provision that the Minister should have a discretion as to the time at which he is going to repay the money to which the citizen is entitled, that he should have a discretion as to the method of repayment, and that he should have a discretion to impose any conditions on the citizen when the citizen is simply getting his money back. It is an extraordinary provision and it is in line with the view that the whole Bill is designed for the general convenience of the Minister and to ignore the rights of citizens.
Why should the Minister have a discretion as to the time at which the citizen should get his money back? These are cases where the citizen was never intended to bear the tax, and he had to pay the extra stamp because it was the only administrative way in which the Government could get the money. Therefore, the situation with which we are dealing in all cases coming under Clauses 2, 5 and 6 are those where, the money having been collected, the citizen proves that he is within the special selected group who are entitled to a refund. Why should he not have it back after a sufficiently long administrative period to allow the Government to estimate his claim and repay it? If the Government take longer to meet the demand of the citizen who is entitled to it, why should he not be able to go to the courts and prove his case?
The second provision is that, at the discretion of the Minister, the method of repayment to the citizen shall be in the discretion of the Minister. Why should it be? Why should not the Government pay their debts, the same as everyone else, either in the legal tender of the realm or by such other method as the receiver may agree? Under this provision, presumably the Government could pay out refunds by Government Bonds or by giving pieces of paper that were not legal tender, and could employ any method which was wholly inconvenient to the citizen, by giving a cheque when he did not have a bank account, and doing other things which might suit the Government but might not suit the individual citizen.
Much worse is the idea that the Government should be able to impose conditions on the citizen who is getting his own money back when Parliament has


said that he can have it. What conditions do Ministers envisage, and why should they have a power which is without limit in tying down the citizen to do all sorts of things as a condition of the repayments which we say are due to him?
It becomes very important in the payment of premiums. If one has a firm which is an industry or one is an employer coming within Clause 1 and will get a premium from the Government, the Government may want to tie up one's industry in all sorts of ways. They may want to impose conditions about exports, improvements to one's machinery, or about almost anything that the Government feel that they would like to order one to do but have not the power at present to do. The Bill proposes that the Government should have that power, and I cannot understand what justification there can be for a Measure drawn in this form.
By our Amendment, we propose that the citizen should be able to get his money back as a debt due from the Crown after three months has expired, which is the time that the Government would need to assess his claim, and that after three months the citizen should be entitled to get his money back if he is within the definitions of the Bill.
One ought to look at the way in which the Government deal with it when they want their money back. Clause 8 provides that the Government may have paid out money by a mistake of fact or law, and in subsection (5) the Bill provides:
where any sum is paid under this Act to any person not entitled thereto, that sum shall be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown.
I ask why, when the Crown is going to pay the money, should it not be treated as a debt due from the Crown in the same way? That is what we propose in the Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: On that last point, may I say at once that we shall be happy ourselves to move Amendment No. 109, which will meet the right hon. Gentleman's point.

With regard to these Amendments, I do not think that, necessarily, they will achieve the object. If they do, the object is unacceptable.

First, the effect is that they would require repayments to begin in the week of 5th December this year. This would be unacceptable, because the Government have made it clear that it is their intention that the tax should have some deflationary effect in the last quarter of this year and that the repayment should not begin till January, 1967. Payments will, in fact, begin on 5th September this year.

The Amendment would require the refunds or repayments to begin three months after the day on which they were paid. If they were paid weekly, there would have to be repayments every week. If the employer paid monthly, he would have to be repaid monthly. The administrative absurdity which would result does not need to be stressed. We want to work out something which would be administratively simpler and workable.

The intention is to introduce in the second quarter of 1967 a plan of staggering the quarterly claims. It is because the details of this cannot be worked out at this stage that this wide formula is required in subsection (5). Ordinarily the intention is that they will be made during the month following the quarter to which they relate. The effect of this is that under the staggered scheme the average wait for the employer will be two months only and not the three months provided for in the Amendment. What we propose to provide will be substantially better than what the Amendment requires.

With regard to the point concerning the debt due from the Crown, this is unnecessary. As soon as the determination has been made of the amount of the payment, it will automatically become a debt due from the Crown and recoverable under the procedure provided for in the Crown Proceedings Act.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 218, Noes 156.

Division No. 151.]
AYES
[6.22 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Anderson, Donald
Beaney, Alan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bence, Cyril


Alldritt, Walter
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)


Allen, Scholefield
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bidwell, Sydney




Binns, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwetl)
Oram, Albert E.


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orme, Stanley


Blackburn, F.
Hamling, William
Oswald, Thomas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hannan, William
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Booth, Albert
Harper, Joseph
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boston, Terence
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Haseldine, Norman
Palmer, Arthur


Boyden, James
Hazell, Bert
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Braddock, Mrs. E. M,
Henig, Stanley
Park, Trevor


Bradley, Tom
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Horner, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Carmichael, Neil
Howie, W.
Price, William (Rugby)


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, James
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Redhead, Edward


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rees, Meriyn


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richard, Ivor


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roebuck, Roy


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rose, Paul


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ryan, John


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Jeger, Mrs. Lcna (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras. S.)
Sheidon, Robert


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Dickens, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dobson, Ray
Judd, Frank
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph


Donnelly, Desmond
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Lawson, George
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)
Leadbitter, Ted
Stonehouse, John


Eadie, Alex
Ledger, Ron
Symonds, J. B.


Ellis, John
Lestor, Miss Joan
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


English, Michael
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Tinn, James


Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tomney, Frank


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Tuck, Raphael


Fernyhough, E.
Luard, Evan
Urwin, T. W.


Finch, Harold
McBride, Neil
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Floud, Bernard
McGuire, Michael
Wallace, George


Foley, Maurice
Mackie, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackintosh, John P.
Weitzman, David


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Forrester, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Whitaker, Bon


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Manuel, Archie
Whitlock, William


Freeson, Reginald
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mason, Roy
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Gardner, A. J.
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Garrow, Alex
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molloy, William
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Moyle, Roland
Woof, Robert


Gregory, Arnold
Murray, Albert
Wyatt, Woodrow


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Newens, Stan
Yates, Victor


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)



Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Norwood, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Corfield, F. V.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Costain, A. P.


Astor, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Balniel, Lord
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Crowder, F. P.


Batsford, Brian
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dance, James


Bessell, Peter
Carlisle, Mark
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Body, Richard
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cary, Sir Robert
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Chichester-Clark, R.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Dodds-Parker, Douglas







Doughty, Charles
Lambton, Viscount
Prior, J. M. L.


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Longden, Gilbert
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Glover, Sir Douglas
Lubbock, Eric
Ridsdale, Julian


Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian
Royle, Anthony


Grant, Anthony
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Scott, Nicholas


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sharples, Richard


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Sinclair, Sir George


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McMaster, Stanley
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gurden, Harold
Macmillan. Maurice (Farnham)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mathew, Robert
Temple, John M.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maude, Angus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Thorpe, Jeremy


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mawby, Ray
Tilney, John


Hawkins, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ward, Dame Irene


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Neave, Alrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Webster, David


Hooson, Emlyn
Nott, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, William


Hornby, Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pardoe, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Wylie, N. R.


Kimball, Marcus
Pike, Mervyn
Younger, Hn. George


Kirk, Peter
Pounder, Rafton



Kitson, Timothy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Francis Pym and




Mr. Peter Blaker.

It being after twenty-two minutes past Six o'clock (the House having resolved itself into the Committee at eight minutes to Four o'clock), The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [18th July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, including the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given.

Amendment made: In page 9, line 41, leave out from "to" to "falls" in line 42 and insert:
the date as from which any establishment shall be deemed to have been registered, or as to the amount, if any, which".—[Mr. Gunter.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(ENFORCEMENT, ETC.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 21, at end add:
unless the sum was paid under a mistake of law".—[Mr. Gunter.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(POWERS TO AMEND ACT BY ORDER.)

Miss Mervyn Pike: I beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 11, line 37, at the end to add:
(d) add to or remove from or amend the definition of a "qualified household" for the purpose of section 6 of this Act in such manner as may be specified in the order.

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 158, in line 37, at end insert:
(d) add to or remove from the employers to whom section 4 of this Act applies any employer specified in the order.

Miss Pike: I am sure that this is an Amendment which will gain the sympathy of right hon. Members opposite. Once again, I should like to say how glad I am to see the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour back. I am told by my colleagues that in welcoming him this afternoon I inadvertently cast aspersions on his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. That was not what I wanted


to do. I merely wanted to say how glad I was that the right hon. Gentleman was back in the Cabinet. We all know that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has done an extremely good job in his absence. I am very glad that the Minister is here, and I am sure that he will wish to accept my Amendment.
We all welcome the exemption of families containing sick or infirm people and employing nurses, families containing people over 70 and families containing young children. The category that I wish to mention is a glaring example of the haste with which the Bill has been thought out. Throughout the proceedings we have been bringing forward examples of the nonsense that the Bill is making and the lack of social justice and consistency in this field.
If it is right, as we believe, to exempt the families that I have mentioned, surely it is right to exempt people who, through no fault of their own, are being looked after in private nursing homes and private homes of one kind or another. If the exemption is restricted to private households, it is a privilege for the well-to-do. Except for exceptional cases where people have to have kidney machines or iron lungs, the only people who can afford nursing assistance at home are those with considerable resources.
The tax is meant to ensure that labour is used more efficiently and effectively. If so, surely nursing labour—it is in very short supply—is used very efficiently and effectively in homes where a number of people are looked after together. Surely the Minister cannot say that the Amendment does not meet the test that it is helping labour to be used particularly efficiently and effectively. Particularly where there are ill, infirm and handicapped people, they are looked after very efficiently and effectively in this sort of home. Surely the tax is not meant to penalise the weak. As I said, it is the rich who can afford nursing assistance in their own homes. The people who have to go to private homes of one sort or another are those for whom there is no provision in their own homes.
The tax is meant to help the economy. Surely those who are making their own provision and relieving the

State of expenditure are the last who should be penalised. These people make their own arrangements and relieve the State of a very considerable financial burden. If they could not go into private nursing homes, in a great many cases they would have to go into State homes. On the whole, it is the private nursing home and the private hospital which are most savagely hit by the tax.
I draw attention to the latest estimates of the costs of the National Health Service given on pages 7 and 8 of the Ministry of Health Report for 1965. The total cost of the service in England and Wales for 1964–65 is estimated at £1,122 million, about 4 per cent. of the national income. This is an increase of about £96 million on the previous year, and two thirds of the increase was needed to meet higher prices and higher salaries and wages. The 1965–66 total expenditure is estimated at about £1,250 million.
Perhaps the most significant sentence in the 1965 Report is the following:
Finance is always likely to be the key factor in the development of the National Health Service.
We all accept this. Surely it makes no sense to discourage any form of private provision whether it be in private general practice or in private hospital provision, including private provision for homes for old people and the disabled and handicapped. The number of places available at the end of last year in private nursing homes, including private hospitals registered with the local authorities, was 25,953, and the number in private mental nursing homes similarly registered was 5,383, a total of 31,336. I obtained this information in a Written Answer which appeared at col. 111 in HANSARD for 8th July, 1966.
With the total waiting list for admission to National Health Service hospitals standing at 517,188 at the end of last year, an increase of 18,273 on 1964, it is absurd for the Government to try to argue that we can afford to risk losing the 31,000 private places. This is what might happen. I do not say that the whole of those places would go, but a great number of them could well go if the Selective Employment Tax is applied to private hospital provision and if people have to go to places provided, at no cost to themselves, from public funds.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is in any doubt about her party's traditional line on this matter, I would say that the best defence of private provision came from the late Aneurin Bevan, who is regarded as the author of the National Health Service and who, in his speech introducing the original National Health Service Bill, said that if people wished to pay for additional amenities or something to which they attached value such as the privacy of a bed in a single room, the aim should be to provide such facilities for everybody who wanted them. That is exactly what this tax now aims at abolishing.
When we look realistically at the pattern of life, with so many married women going out to work, with so many women in professional occupations like teaching, medicine and nursing and with others going back into employment, we see the great difficulty of trying to care for so many of these elderly people in their own homes.
Very often the older people particularly are much happier and better cared for in one of these private homes than they ever could be in their own families, because of the loneliness of being alone at home when the young people go out to work and, when they come home, the noise of the new beat of the television, radio and music box, providing all the distractions of feeling alone and unwanted, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a burden and out of context in modern life.
We recognise that those who make the sacrifice—and very often it is a sacrifice—to put their older relatives and dependants into these homes not only relieve the State of a burden but do something to alleviate the difficulties of these older people towards the end of their days. This surely should weigh strongly with the hon. Lady when approaching the problem.
It is not only a question of the old and the infirm or the fact that by enabling them to go to these homes we help women to return to employment and often thereby have a much fuller and happier life. I have one of these homes in my constituency. I make a point of visiting it frequently because these older people love to see somebody. For the most part they are bedridden. They are

usually professional people, retired matrons, doctors or teachers, for example, whose faculties are still sharp and alert. They are happier living together in the community, even though sometimes they cannot move from their own rooms. They are happier being in this sort of community where people like myself can call in and in half an hour see many of them. Many of these people are being sustained in these homes by their younger families, who are very much overstretched and who will find it very much more difficult in the future.
What of the people on their own who have no family to look after them? They may be mothers or fathers whose children have died or who have had no children, or single men and women who have nobody to look after them at the end of their lives. Very often they have made this special private provision for themselves. They have bought annuities into which they have sunk all their capital. They have calculated how many years they can afford to live and how well they can eke out their meagre savings. Their savings, however, are being cut because of the inflation that is gathering momentum.
Their worries and anxieties become worse, and now they have this added burden of the insecurity of thinking that they must pick up their roots and go, perhaps, into a local authority home because the charges will go up that little bit extra which they cannot afford. People are, of course, well looked after in local authority homes, but in most constituencies places in local authority homes are very much at a premium. We know that it is much more expensive to look after these people in those homes, and, indeed, the staffing requirements are much higher.
6.45 p.m.
So much for the private homes for the old people who are trying to end their days in some form of dignity and independence. What about the homes for the mentally handicapped? Is it the Government's policy to penalise those people and those devoted families who try their best to give these people a standard of life which, very often, is out of all comparison and proportion to the resources of the family as a whole? It is particularly tragic when a young


person is mentally handicapped or subnormal. All families with any form of compassion try to do their best to see that these people have the best possible provision. In most cases it is quite impossible to have the sort of help that will enable them to stay at home. They therefore go into homes for the mentally handicapped, thus bringing relief to a family which is already overstrained, not only financially, but emotionally also.
There are also homes where much valuable pioneer work is done in this field. They are homes which very often have led the way and have made a breakthrough in much of our understanding, training and teaching of mentally handicapped people.
I accept that the increase in fees would be only small—I do not pretend that the increases would be large—but a small increase is cumulative when there are increases right across the board for these families. This very small increase means going over the margin from private provision to public provision with all the added cost that that means, as well as the added burden emotionally for the person who is moved from the home as well as for the family who feel to some extent that they are failing in their duty.
I have not mentioned that many of these people use the facilities of private nursing homes and hospitals. I have not mentioned the private maternity homes. These, again, play an important and valuable part in the lives of so many young people whose finances are desperately overstretched.
We all know the difficulties of getting maternity accommodation in the public hospitals. In my constituency people have to go into Leicester to an overcrowded hospital, which frequently has been the subject of debate and question in the House. A great many of these people, particularly when confinement and pregnancy is likely to be difficult, make provision in a private maternity home, relieving the burden on the State but, at the same time, giving them the feeling of security that comes from knowing that they have this type of private provision. Is it the Government's wish that all this private provision should cease? Here again, with all the added cost, young families will find this a particular burden.
One of the great burdens that will be found in this respect is upon the nursery schools. Most of us will accept that we need more nursery schools from the point of view both of the children learning to live and grow up together and all that this can do in formulating good behaviour patterns and the rest, and for what it can do in freeing the parents to go out to work and ensuring that the home not only is a good one, but is a home where everybody uses his or her personality to the full.
A great many of us, looking at the young families of today, recognise the tremendous part that nursery schools play in the lives particularly of young professional people. The mother may be a university professor, a teacher or somebody else who does an important piece of research work in the community as a whole, and who wants her child properly brought up and looked after in a nursery school. Perhaps she can afford to have a home help to look after the child, but most of us recognise that very often children at this stage are better prepared for their school life by going into nursery schools. Here again, I know that the increase will not be swingeing, but I have here a case which shows that the increase may be about 5s. or 6s. a week. It is likely to be between 4s. and 10s. a week. Very often many of the parents who are sending their children to these homes are doing so on narrow margins and it may well be, as in the case I have here, that if several parents remove their children because of the increase the whole nursery school closes down because it cannot get the full complement of children. This is something that the State does not provide in sufficient amount, and if it did provide them it would be a considerably added expense to the community as a whole.
I have brought forward only a few examples of the sort of institution, the sort of home, the sort of organisation, the sort of people and the sort of problems that would be met by giving the exemption sought in the Amendment. As I said at the beginning, I hope that the hon. Lady will not come out with the argument that the increase is only very minimal, that the increase in fees in these particular homes, schools and hospitals will be only very slight and


something that people can easily assimilate.
I ask her to accept that new conditions have come about since the tax was proposed. It was bad when it was proposed. It was an unfair, unjust and ill-thought-out tax when it was first introduced, but in the context of recent financial measures and against the present and future economic background, it will cause considerable hardship to whole sections of the community.
The Amendments are small. These are small concessions that the Government could make. They already give exemption for private nursing in private homes. I believe that they will look sympathetically at this, but I urge that these are exceptions that will help a growing number of people who wish to make private provision for themselves and for their own dependants, whether they are elderly, infirm or handicapped in one way or another. I urge the hon. Lady to accept the Amendment so that we can give these people some security, independence and dignity at the end of their lives.

Mr. R. H. Turton: The definition of a qualified household includes a private household. Surely the private old persons' home is a private household?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mrs. Shirley Williams): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mrs. Shirley Williams) indicated dissent.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Lady shakes her head. Then clearly there must be some alteration to the Bill before we finish with it to bring in those private old people's homes. At present, as the hon. Lady knows, there is a tremendous waiting list for places for old people. This need is met partly by the county welfare hostels and hostels run by local authorities, partly by charitable institutions, such as the Abbeyfield homes or places of a similar character, and partly by the small homes for old people which are just struggling along because the old people cannot afford to pay very much for their lodging.
It has been a great battle for these small homes to carry on. I hope that the hon. Lady will make it quite clear that they will come under the definition, or

that, if not, she will amend the definition before the Bill becomes law.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) that, equally, there is a strong case for the private nursing home and the private maternity home. But I especially stress at this time the need for the House to be generous to all those who are caring for the old, because there is a great lack of provision for old people in this country.
As the Bill stands, the very rich old people who can be looked after in their own homes will be relieved under the definition, as my hon. Friend said, but all the poorer old people, unless they can get a place in an old persons' home run by either a charity or local authority will be penalised, and many old people's homes will be closed. That would be a great tragedy.

Mr. Lubbock: As I understand it, the hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike) is seeking to do two things, first to extend the definition of a household so as to include some of the homes she mentioned and also in her second Amendment to provide that the Minister can by order expand a list of employers to whom Clause 4 applies. Therefore, she hopes to be able to do the same thing by means of two different Amendments, and one may apply in the one case and another in some of the others.
She has mentioned some of the bodies to whom extension might be granted under one or other of these Amendments. I have great sympathy with both of them, because it is impossible for us to foresee at this moment in time the effect of these taxes and where it may be thought desirable to give relief at a later date.
For that reason alone I would have supported the Amendment, even though I think that the hon. Lady in proposing it did not deal with some of the difficulties which could arise in particular instances. She and her right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) spoke about the old people's homes. I should be reluctant to extend relief to all old people's homes which are not charities, as both the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend seem to desire, because I know some old people's homes which no hon. Member would wish to support by tax exemption.

Miss Pike: I hoped I had made the point that I was talking about those homes licensed by the local authority. I mentioned that specifically.

Mr. Lubbock: I am sorry to tell the hon. Lady that I know some homes that have been approved by local authorities about which I have had some extremely serious complaints. When I have written to Ministers about them they have told me that unfortunately the powers to inspect and to supervise the conduct of these homes are not nearly as extensive as they would wish. I can show the hon. Lady correspondence which I have had with Ministers on this subject.
Therefore, I do not believe at this moment that Governments have sufficient power over the operation of these private old people's homes to make it desirable for us to extend this tax exemption to them. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Committee, when she comes to reply, how many old people we are considering under the Amendment, because it is my impression that most of the better homes are operated by organisations such as the Abbeyfield Societies, of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. I agree that we should give them every help that the Committee can. Unfortunately we are not helping them further, since they are already covered by the Bill and will not have to pay the Selective Employment Tax; or rather, they will be entitled to repayment of the tax, which is a harsh enough treatment to mete out to them. It will hurt them to have to find the tax in the first place even though they will get the money back after a while. I should prefer to see them not put to the trouble of making those payments and then claiming the refund.
I should have thought that most of the better types of nursing home are in the category of a charity and the number of old people we are dealing with who stay in the homes operated for profit by an individual or a small group of individuals must be very small. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some figures on that.
We have heard about the disabled, and the same argument probably applies to them. In this connection, we know, for example, of the Cheshire Homes, which are covered by the existing provisions of

the Bill and would not benefit from the Amendment. Here, too, one would wish to do all possible to encourage such homes and not to create a proliferation of small bodies which may not give the kind of treatment which the disabled need.
The same can be said in regard to the mentally handicapped. I should not like to encourage the wide scale provision of small homes which it is difficult for the Minister of Health properly to supervise in which mentally handicapped people have to pay in order to stay. This is not a desirable aim and certainly should not be encouraged by our taxing system.
To return to my first observation, I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Melton was on a good point in that we cannot foresee all the consequences of the tax. I want the Minister to be given powers under both these Amendments so that, if any unforeseen circumstance arises in which the whole Committee would think it desirable to add to the list, we may be able to do so without fresh legislation. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept both Amendments.

7 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I support the Amendment so fully and ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike), and I wish to take further the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) when he spoke with particular reference to the claims on our sympathy and help of homes, not being charities, which exist for the care of old people.
Two points arise on these Amendments: first, whether it is desirable that the effect of the tax be mitigated in respect of homes for old people, mentally handicapped and the like, and, second, whether, if it is right in principle that the harshness of the tax should be mitigated in their favour, some Amendment of the Bill is necessary in order to bring that about. My right hon. Friend asked the hon. Lady whether, in her view, the words "private household" in the definition of "qualified household" for these purposes under Clause 6(2) would include such homes, and the hon. Lady appeared to nod her head in assent.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Mrs. Shirley Williams indicated dissent.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Lady nods in dissent. That removes the surprise which I felt in thinking that she nodded in assent. I hoped that she would nod in assent, but I could not imagine, from my interpretation of the Bill, that she could properly nod in assent because it is clear and common ground that, as now drafted, it could not include homes of the kind which hon. Members now have in mind. That disposes of the drafting question, and it means, therefore, that, if it be right that some mitigation of the effects of the tax should be introduced for the benefit of such homes, it can be done only by some such Amendment as is here proposed.
On the question whether the Bill should be so amended, hon. Members will have in mind that the resources of the National Health Service are particularly stretched in regard to two categories of care, care of the old and care of the mentally handicapped. No one who has had any connection with the Ministry of Health can be other than keenly aware of the difficult nature of both these problems. They are both growing problems. The problems of the aged and the infirm increase with the prolongation of the normal period of human life. The prolongation of human life is a good thing, but one consequence is that the proportion of old people in the community as a whole steadily increases. It is vastly greater now than it was, for example, half a century ago. Unfortunately, the statistics in regard to mental handicap are most challenging, as the House knows, and there is here also a very great problem in the provision of care and accommodation.
Both of these are sympathetic and deserving cases, and both are cases in which there must be a considerable private supplementation of the stretched resources of the National Health Service. My right hon. Friend spoke specifically of the geriatric side of it, and I endorse everything he said, but I add a word about the care of the mentally handicapped, a subject in which I have taken an increasing interest since it was my privilege to pilot through the House what is now the Mental Health Act, 1959, and also in my capacity as vice-president of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children.
For all that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said about some private institutions and homes providing a less high standard than others, it is nevertheless true that there is a good deal of very fine work being done by voluntary and private organisations, and, should that work cease, the difficulties to which the resources of the National Health Service are necessarily exposed would be still greater than they are at present.
For these reasons, there is both a very strong and a very sympathetic case for an extension of the powers under the Clause to meet what we have in mind, with particular reference to the old and the mentally handicapped, and I unequivocally add my strong support to the Amendment.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I am a little timorous in speaking after two of my right hon. Friends, my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who are both former Ministers of Health. I claim no special knowledge of the difficult topic which we are debating now, impinging as it does so largely on the care of the elderly, infirm and chronically sick. I intervene principally, perhaps, because of a constituency interest. In my constituency is Malvern, and it is well known that there are many private and fee-paying establishments in Malvern. One and a half dozen of them are educational establishments, but there are also establishments of a private and fee-paying character, which look after the elderly.
I find all study of geriatrics today rather harrowing. Every member of the Committee, whatever his constituency in whatever part of the United Kingdom, knows that there is a grave shortage of provision for elderly people. I put the point in clear and unmistakable terms: the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health could not today do without the private fee-paying establishment, whether educational or geriatric. The trouble with this Bill and with the Selective Employment Tax is that, among other things, it deliberately discriminates against private fee-paying establishments under the two heads to which I have


alluded. It is 6 per cent. of the pupils at school in this country who are at private fee-paying establishments. This Bill discriminates against them. I shall not pursue that further because it may be doubtful whether I should be in good order in doing so. I am delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) who tells me that I am in good order. I think I should be out of order. I take my own counsel on this occasion. It is only a passing reference which I make to educational establishments of a private and fee-paying character. The Bill discriminates against them very badly—all the public schools, all the private schools, all the nursery schools, all the kindergartens, all the Froebels, all the private fee-paying establishments.
That is the analogy, but it also discriminates against any establishment of a fee-paying character designed to look after the elderly, and that is why I direct my comments and the attention of the Minister of Labour particularly, to this Amendment, No. 110.
So far as I am aware there are four ways of looking after the elderly man or woman who is incapable of looking after himself or herself. Those four ways are, first, he or she may be cared for within his or her own family, in which case no question arises of the payment of Selective Employment Tax. Second, he or she may be cared for by a paid attendant. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his earlier relaxation in that regard, and as a result of that relaxation there is no question of the payment of Selective Employment Tax in that second application. The third fashion in which the elderly man or woman may be looked after is in a local authority elderly person's home; there is no question of payment of Selective Employment Tax under that third application. But the fourth category, the elderly person looked after in a private fee-paying establishment, attracts the tax in regard to the attendants in that home.
It is a curious coincidence in the matter of the single application, the fourth application which I have quoted, that in dictating my correspondence downstairs a couple of hours ago the last letter to which I dictated a reply, was from a lady who runs a home for elderly people—actually, in a Socialist held constituency.

She had written to the Socialist Member. His reply, in the most courteous terms, was that at this late stage of this Bill it was doubtful whether the Government would introduce any exceptional provisions to deal with attendants in the lady's private fee-paying old persons' home. The lady was not satisfied, and came to Malvern and posted from Malvern, from a friend's home, a letter to me in order to invoke my aid. It is a coincidence that this came to me on this day. I sent her a very sympathetic answer, and promised to plead this case to the Minister.
If I have been guilty of any omissions in the four ways in which the elderly may be cared for I hope the Minister will supplement me, but I think these are the four ways of looking after elderly persons. The costs of attendance in terms of labour in the first three applications do not attract tax, but in the case of the fourth they do attract the tax, and I say that is a very grave case of discrimination.
I want to end on a note of some dissension. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington gave his qualified support to Amendment No. 110, and I am glad he gave that much support, but I would not go very far with him in suggesting so many homes which provide for mentally retarded children do not reach the required standards after they have approval of the local authority.

Mr. Lubbock: It was about old people's homes I spoke and what I was saying was—I quoted a case—that there are homes which are approved but which do not meet my own standards, even if they meet the Minister's.

7.15 p.m.

Sir G. Nabarro: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I misunderstood him, and I withdraw the application to mentally retarded children's homes and substitute old people's homes. The fact is that today the demand for attendants, care and aid for elderly people is overwhelming, and though I do not plead for any reduction in standards I should have thought the hon. Gentleman's proper course was to take his cases to the local authority, or through the Ministers responsible, and seek to improve the standards of their care.
But what I am keenly conscious of is the fact that we cannot afford to lose a single bed in any geriatric establishment


today, overburdened as Governmental services are. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the magnificent book written by the late Lord Beveridge, his last publication, called "Voluntary Endeavour", wherein he pleaded through hundreds of pages the cause, that the Welfare State was wholly insufficient to deal with all the hardships which we find in our country today, and that, with regard to the great voluntary endeavour in every sphere, including geriatrics, including the mentally retarded, the elderly and sick, we had to rely so very largely on voluntary efforts. They include, of course, the kind of applications which I am pleading for this evening.
Has the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary who is to reply to this debate ever studied the work of the W.V.S.? Does she know that the W.V.S., which conduct the "Meals on Wheels" service for elderly people in so many parts of the country, notably in the rural areas and areas of scattered population, rely largely on the industrial canteens today, to help them with their hot meals? A charge is made, of course, which, ultimately, the county council pays for. But if we discriminate against private people's homes, elderly people's homes conducted on a private fee-paying basis, then we diminish the staff available in those homes and we add an additional burden to the voluntary services, notably the W.V.S., who will never say "No" however great the burden which is put upon them. I do not think it aids our voluntary services to drive people out of the private fee-paying establishments and so put additional duties on to the voluntary services, notably the W.V.S., which every Member of this Committee ought to recognise does such helpful work throughout our social services.
For these reasons, though I am a stranger to debates on geriatrics—only once in 16 years as a Member of the House of Commons have I here made a speech within the ambit of health, and that was on a maternity home—and perhaps that comes into this—[HON. MEMBERS: "It does."]—It does? Jolly good. Well, I will not talk about it this evening, because the arguments would be similar. But, having made a speech about a maternity home, I am pleased to have made another speech about

geriatrics this evening, and I hope that the response from the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary will be both cogent and sympathetic.

Captain Walter Elliot: I want to make only one short point in this debate. Under the mass of criticism both here and in the country that this S.E.T. has received it is sometimes difficult to keep in sight why it was ever imposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) referred to the effects this Amendment would have in causing labour to be used more efficiently, and, I think, quite rightly.
I suppose, also, that another reason for this tax is to raise revenue. All Chancellors, we know, are short of money, and our present Chancellor is shorter of money than any Chancellor, I suppose, practically in living memory. He has certainly imposed an enormous burden upon and clawed in vast sums of money from the nation, so he must be; but he is still short of money to pay for our services, the health service for one. So it is just as well that many people not only want to but do pay for themselves, often at very great sacrifice.
If the Amendment were accepted and discretion thus extended to the Minister, it should be possible to work out the cost and that could be weighed against the saving to the State which occurs by people making their own provision. What objection is there to doing that? We think that people should be encouraged to make their own provision all through their lives into old age. There is an increasing desire by the ordinary person to do this.
If the Government do not accept the Amendment, I hope that the hon. Lady will not dismiss it for any doctrinaire reasons. If she were to produce good reasons for rejecting the Amendment—for instance, that it would not cause labour to be used more efficiently; that the loss of revenue would be so serious that the Government could not entertain it; or that the Government want the deflationary effect of the S.E.T. to make itself felt through these establishments—those arguments would be considered on their merits. I hope that the hon. Lady will answer these points specifically, especially the question of the loss of revenue being weighed against the saving


to the Government which is brought about by people making their own provision.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I have been provoked into speaking by a remark by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who decried the standards of some private homes. I accept that there are varying standards in private homes. There are varying standards in local authority homes. I accept the hon. Gentleman's comment as applying to some cases, particularly to physical standards in terms of buildings and facilities, because often these are not anything like as good as those to be found in local authority homes.
I believe that private homes must be judged by different standards. I have been to local authority homes which have the most wonderful facilities, but which, because of the nature of the staff employed there, have not provided the standard of care and attention which those in the homes want. There is a strong case for not judging these homes by physical standards, because it is often the case that in private homes the standard of care and attention is better than that to be found in local authority homes.
I am amazed that the argument should be advanced that, if there are not many people involved, it does not matter very much. It matters tremendously even if only a few people are involved. We must remind ourselves that people are paying for these services. They would not pay for them if they did not want them. This is another reason for rejecting the argument that the facilities provided are not as good, because people are paying for them and these homes are obviously answering a need.

Mr. Lubbock: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the case of old people's homes it is often a relative who pays for the services and sometimes the relative's motives are not of the highest.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That shows the extent of the interest the relative takes. What the hon. Gentleman hints at is not borne out by my experience. People who are doing this are relieving the State of the burden of providing this form of social service. For this reason, if for

no other, the Amendment should be considered sympathetically.
In some parts of the country privately-run establishments answer a genuine need. I will give one example from my experience. Local authorities in certain areas do not necessarily provide nursery schools. I know of one such school which was started by a friend of mine because there was no local authority school and people asked for these facilities to be provided. She went out of her way to do so. To begin with, she worked on her own. The school was fairly small, but, because it was successful, she had to bring in others to help her. She makes a charge, because the school is privately run. She will become liable for the Selective Employment Tax on those who are helping her.
Hon. Members will know of similar cases in their constituencies. In such cases private persons are providing a definite social service which is not available from the local authority or from the State. It is wrong that this type of person should be penalised. I have quoted the example of a nursery school. There are examples in other sectors.
For these reasons, I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Sir Douglas Glover: I cannot understand why the Minister did not long ago say that he would accept the Amendment. It is not as though we are talking about a nation in which there is a surplus of maternity beds in State-run institutions. It is not as though we are talking about a nation in which sufficient first-class nursery schools are provided for the State so that every child who wants to go to a nursery school is able to do so. It is not as though we are talking about a nation where there are empty beds in every State-run or local authority old persons' home. We are talking about a nation in which the whole State system would break down if it were not for private institutions.
Under these conditions, why in the name of all that is sensible should these institutions be victimised or penalised as compared with those who happen to be under the State umbrella? The people who run these institutions carry out the same service. I accept the statement by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that some of them do not reach


the standards he would like to see. Many State institutions do not reach the standard I would like to see. I have a great deal of experience of visiting them. I have been appalled at what I have seen there.
Anyone who says that every mental patient looked after by the State is living in the conditions that the general public would like to see has obviously not seen the conditions in some institutions. Some people, perhaps having a little more money, want to keep their relatives out of that atmosphere and place them in a much smaller organisation. I have the highest admiration for the bulk of the private homes I have encountered.
I base my whole case on where I started. It is not as though we are talking about a perfect society where everything is provided for by the community. Without privately run institutions, the whole State system would be in chaos. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who make use of facilities offered by private endeavour.
I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to say that, as these people will find it much more difficult to carry on, the only sensible thing would be to put all the staff who work in these various establishments, whether they be State owned or privately owned, whether they are working on a charitable basis or for profit, on the same level so that the impost on all of them is the same.

Mr. John Page: I want to say a few words in support of private maternity homes. In the Harrow area of Middlesex there is a greater shortage of maternity beds than of any other kind of bed. It is extremely difficult in these days for young mothers to have even their first babies in a State nursing home or hospital. There are a number of privately-run maternity homes in the Harrow area. Unless the Minister withdraws from his present position of discrimination and victimisation against such homes, these nursing homes will find it difficult to continue to provide services.
At the moment, the Bill would have two effects. First, it would reduce the number of maternity beds available because of the increased charges, and, secondly, and even more serious, it would remove yet another strata of parents who

can afford to do what they would like to do, which is to provide proper confinement for their wives when they are having their babies. I feel that the public cannot go along with this and I hope that the Minister will do something to stop what is an apparent, obvious and calculated act of discrimination by the Government.

7.30 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: This debate started with the kind remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike), which I accept in the spirit in which they were made. Perhaps I might say that if she is pleased to see my right hon. Friend, she cannot be half as pleased as I am.
Once again, the debate has reflected a matter of great concern, particularly to those who, I know, are deeply involved in one body or another concerned with the problems of these groups of people. Before I deal briefly with some of the points which have been raised, I think it fair to say that the bulk of the argument on this Clause was gone through on two earlier Clauses. One of the great difficulties about the Amendments Nos. 110 and 158 is that they seek to change a Clause which deals with a rather special element, namely, the private household dealt with under Clause 6, subsection (3) of which says:
No payment shall be made under this section unless the Supplementary Benefits Commission … are satisfied that the requirements of subsection (1) of this section are fulfilled. …
It would be inappropriate for the Commission to deal with the kind of concerns which hon. Members have mentioned today.
When I first saw the Amendment, I supposed that what the hon. Lady and her colleagues had in mind was an addition to the list of private qualified households, rather than the introduction of bodies which are not, and cannot be, described as private households. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) was right to say that the phrase "private households", at least according to the best of my information, could not bear the addition of the kind of bodies which have been mentioned during the debate.

Sir D. Walker Smith: I agree that that is what I said. Nevertheless, to get the effect of the Clause, one has to look back to subsection (1). It is the qualified households with which we are ultimately concerned. Albeit they cannot fall into the category of private households, they can, and should, fall into the category of qualified households.

Mrs. Williams: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, but the point that I am making is that Clause 6, which was written into the Bill by the Government, deals with a particular group of private households, and was drawn up for that purpose. This is why such specific conditions are laid down. The Opposition are trying to reintroduce the argument which we had on Clauses 1 and 2, where an attempt was made to bring private homes first into premium, and later into the refund category. This is a re-debate of an earlier debate during which the Government gave their reasons why they felt unable to deal with these bodies.
I should like now to consider one or two of these groups, and to answer some of the points which have been raised. I should like to deal, first, with the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, because of his special interest in mentally handicapped children. Our information is that the great bulk of children's homes, and not least those dealing with mentally handicapped children, are either local authority or charitable organisations. Very few are run for profit. It would not be right to say anything particular about those run for profit, but it may be that there are some considerations to be borne in mind about his type of institution which is run as a commercial service. However, the incidence of them is tiny.
When it comes to other homes, broadly the same pattern applies. There is a combination of charitable homes and local authority homes, and both would be receiving the refund. In the case of old people's homes, to which many hon. Members have referred, I shall give the figures as far as I can. Our information is that at the moment about 28,000 elderly people live in voluntary and private old people's homes. Some of those in voluntary homes would again come under the arrangements made for charities. Most hon. Members are aware of the famous names which come to mind in this context. One

was referred to by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), and these are rightly in the refund category.

Mr. Turton: Where does the hon. Lady get her information from? It is out of line with the information that I used to get when I was in contact with the National Corporation for the Care of Old People.

Mrs. Williams: This information comes from the Department concerned. I shall try, after the debate, to give the right hon. Gentleman further details about this.
With regard to elderly people in private homes which are commercial homes, I must stress this because, by definition, if they are not able to, or have not applied, for charitable status they will be run virtually as a commercial concern, and consequently the Bill will apply to them. It is fair to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Orpington, because it is well known that the Government have no power over the standards of conduct in these homes. I am not suggesting that some are not run with great dedication. Of course they are. What I am saying is that at the moment there is no way of distinguishing between those run with dedication, and those run purely for purposes of profit.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is that a valid argument in this context? Is it not the fact that if those homes are not available for geriatric cases, whether the home is approved by the local authority or not, whether they are competent homes or not in the broadest sense of the term, if those beds are not available, no other places will be available for these old people because local authority homes have no space for them, and there is nowhere else for them to go if they have no family care?

Miss Pike: Would not the hon. Lady accept that, after all, exemption is given if one has care in one's own home although no qualitative argument is used? One may have a nurse who treats one cruelly. One may be living in squalid conditions, but one still gets exempted from the tax.

Mrs. Williams: It is true that the distinction lies in the fact that the employment is in private homes which by definition are run for profit whereas in


the other case somebody is running somebody else's home not merely for a salary or a fee.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) usually argued his case in a powerful way. It would be very difficult to accept that the Government should subsidise a home which is clearly incompetent, or which may be inadequate in the way in which it deals with old people.

Sir D. Glover: Sir D. Glover rose——

Mrs. Williams: I have given way rather a lot, and I would like to complete my reply to this discussion.
With regard to the overall position, it is the case that, in the kind of instance which hon. Gentlemen have in mind, it will be open to the Government to amend the Bill, and the Government, in certain circumstances, will be open to representation that they should do so. But it is our feeling that it would be appropriate to deal with this group of cases by legislation, and if there is to be a rebate of tax of the kind which hon. Gentlemen have in mind, and consequently it is necessary to draw a distinction between profit-making services on the one side, and profit-making services for a particular purpose, which might be a useful purpose, on the other, it will be necessary to draw up legislation in a way which makes it possible both to lay down standards for that group of service, and to lay down clear indications of what is covered by them.
In the view of the Government, therefore, it would be much more appropriate if, eventually, it should be thought that there was some need for a relief in this direction, that it should take the form of legislation, in which all these aspects could be dealt with, and not least those aspects referred to by the hon. Member for Orpington. It would be better to do this than to give a wide power to the Minister, by way of Orders, which would be extremely difficult to specify or make clear in the way required by the Opposition.
In the circumstances, I must ask the Committee to reject the two Amendments.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Lady deal with my point, that there may arise

cases which no hon. Member of the Committee foresees, in respect of which both Government and Opposition, on a nonparty basis, would wish to provide exemption in respect of a category of householder or employer? If these powers were conferred on her right hon. Friend they could be very useful.

Mrs. Williams: Legislation would be the best way of getting over the difficulties that the hon. Member has in mind, but that is a major way of dealing with the problem. At present, the Supplementary Benefits Commission can decide whether a payment should be made. That provides a certain amount of flexibility, and it is only fair to make clear that the conditions laid down in subsection (2) were very carefully drawn up and thought out. The Government envisaged that they would cover the main cases arising in the case of private households.

Sir G. Nabarro: I propose to castigate the hon. Lady for the use of two terms in her speech, both of which I thought odious in the context of what we have been debating. She referred to "profits". Nobody runs an old people's home for profit. Nobody runs a mentally-retarded children's home for profit. People run them because they are dedicated people, and nobody would ever make a fortune out of them.
The second expression that I found odious—and I am being as kind as I can to the hon. Lady—was her reference to "commercial activities". If they are not local authority homes they may be referred to as profit earning and perhaps regarded as commercial. But I would not regard them as such. People run them because they are dedicated to the care of unfortunate human beings, and because there is nobody else to look after them. I object to the Minister's using those two terms in the connotation that we have been discussing.
I am glad to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his place. I wager that he would not be able to reply to a Parliamentary Question from me as to the amount of taxation derived last year from old people's homes run for profit on a commercial scale. Of course he would not; the Treasury would not have it to reveal, anyway, because there are no profits.
I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will decide to vote, and to vote loud and often on this kind of issue. I conclude my second speech in Committee by observing that out of 363 Labour Members who fought the last General Election on welfare issues 353 are Missing and only 10 are in their places. What a disgraceful indictment of the Labour Party, which is about to use the Guillotine to bear down on the humanitarian instincts of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. I hope that it will go out from the Committee loud and clear that the Labour Party has 353 absentees, and only 10 Members present. Disgraceful!

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: The hon. Lady has dealt courteously with the arguments we have put forward, but we are exceedingly disappointed that she has held out no hope of a concession to our very powerful arguments. I want to deal with some of the points which the hon. Lady advanced in opposition to our Amendments. One was that it would not be appropriate to accept an Amendment of this kind to vary these provisions by order but would be more appropriate to do so by legislation. All that we are asking is that the same power should be available under this Clause as is already available in a number of other Clauses.
Clause 1 contains power to amend, by order, the categories of those who will be eligible for premium. In the same way, Clause 9 contains power to vary, by order, the refund available. In those two cases we are dealing with premiums and refunds which will be far more extensive than the suggestion which we are making in relation to this Clause. I find that argument entirely unacceptable. Had there been no power in the Bill to vary by order her argument might have had some weight, but when the main provisions of the Bill, referring to premiums and refunds, can be altered by order it is reasonable to ask, in the same way, that the definition of "special households" should also be capable of alteration by order.
It is more important in cases of this kind, because here we are dealing with what we might call welfare refunds. If it is found that present arrangements are not working satisfactorily—that they are not covering all the categories of individuals or institutions which should be

covered—surely it is immensely important to act speedily, and the only way in which we can do that is in the way we suggest.
My hon. Friends have said, and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has also pointed out, that it is impossible to foresee how the special refund provisions will operate. If, after a few months' experience, we find that changes are required, surely it is very important, in respect of social cases of this kind, that changes should be made with speed. They cannot be made with speed if we have to rely on new legislation.

Mr. Lubbock: If the Minister thinks that these powers are far too extensive it can always be provided that they lapse after, say, two years.

Mr. Dean: I thank the hon. Member for Orpington for his help on that point.
Another point which the hon. Lady used is that there is no way of distinguishing between a good and a bad institution. I am glad that my hon. Friends have taken up that point. The first answer to that argument is that it is generally recognised that the resources of the State services are totally inadequate to meet all the needs mentioned during the debate. Therefore, whether these institutions are good or not so good they are still fulfilling a need which would not be fulfilled at all if they were not in existence.
Apart from that, if that is the argument surely there is a case for saying that the Regulations governing these institutions should be tightened up. Already a number of Ministries with experience in these matters are involved. The Ministry of Labour is responsible for the payments and the Ministry of Pensions for the collection of the money.
The Supplementary Benefits Commission, admittedly, deals with the special circumstances of Clause 6, relating to the qualified households, but surely, when a Ministry is as intimately involved with social welfare as the Ministry of Pensions, it would not be beyond the powers of that Ministry to make the necessary checks on these extensions of special households which we suggest.
The hon. Lady also said that, in many cases, the institutions with which we are dealing are already covered for refund, either because they are local authority


institutions or because they are charities. She quoted figures about old people's homes, voluntary and private, and the number of people in them, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) very rightly queried. The figures that we have from the many private institutions suggest that the numbers involved are a good deal larger than this. I agree that it is very difficult to get accurate figures on this—it is virtually impossible—but we contest the figure of 28,000 which she gave.
On the anomalies, if even a substantial proportion of the institutions for which we are pleading are covered because they are run by local authorities or are charities, what about the others which are fulfilling exactly the same function and meeting the same need? Surely it is an unacceptable anomaly and a totally unfair and unreal distinction to say that certain institutions, because they are run by local authorities or because they are charities, should not have to bear this burden, but that others which, in every other respect, are on all fours with them, should have to bear it.
Therefore, this argument, that a certain percentage of these are charities, carries no weight. Indeed, it strongly supports our case. We are not asking the Government in this instance to accept the case which has been put forward for every particular institution which has been mentioned, although we believe strongly that all of them should not have to pay this tax. What we are simply asking in the Amendment is that the Government should take powers to vary the definition by Order in exactly the same way as they are taking power to vary the definition in the case of the premiums and the refunds.
We are asking for a measure of flexibility in these welfare refunds, so that, if it is proved that there are cases of hardship, as we believe there will be, it will be possible to put them right speedily. My hon. Friends have mentioned many examples and have also drawn attention to the shortage of resources available to the National Health Service and to these institutions generally.
Indeed, any hon. Member who has read the Report of the Ministry of Health which came out only last week cannot but be impressed to find that nearly every

chapter of that report draws attention to enormous demands on our state services which are not met because, in many cases, of shortage of resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) drew attention to the sentence:
Finance is always likely to be a key factor in the development of the National Health Service.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, with their great experience in these matters as former Ministers of Health, pointed out that two of the aspects of care which are most in need of attention and for which the State services are least able to provide what is required are care for the elderly and care for the mentally handicapped.
Any legislation which we introduce in conditions of this kind which are likely to prejudice the private element which is helping to fill the gaps which the State services cannot fill are surely thoroughly bad for these sections of the community.
It is not only the institutions for the old, the infirm and the disabled, the nursery schools, the maternity homes and the like, important as they are, with which we are concerned. There are also various individuals who may well—we believe almost certainly should—come within the category of qualified households. The category of children in Clause 6 is very narrowly drawn. There may well be other people in full-time employment, and who are looking after children, who are not now covered under Clause 6, but whom experience will show should be covered.
What about the widow or the unmarried woman in full-time employment and caring for elderly relatives, who, because she is in full-time employment, has to have paid help in the home to care for those relatives? These people are not covered by Clause 6. These are just two examples of individuals——

Mrs. Shirley Williams: As a result of the Amendment to Clause 6, which was accepted by the Committee, the hon. Gentleman will find that the two instances he has given are now covered.

Mr. Dean: I did not quite catch what the hon. Lady said.

Mrs. Williams: Clause 6, as amended by the Committee, now covers at least two of the three instances which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Dean: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. I am glad that at least those points are covered. This is all to the good. But there are many other cases which are not covered.
As long as we endanger the growth of private provision and indeed the existence of the present private provision, we shall still find that the gaps in our national services generally will continue to exist. No one can foresee a time when there will not be a real need for private provision and State provision to work in partnership together. We believe that it is desirable in principle. We believe also that it is highly necessary, if all the wide variety of human needs are to be fully met.
So many of the cases with which we are dealing and about which we are thinking are not rich institutions. Many of these private homes are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. Many cannot charge an economic price for the services which they provide, because their residents simply cannot afford to pay it. We are dealing also with institutions which, by their very

nature, are labour intensive. One cannot run a private hospital, an old people's home or any institution of this kind without a great deal of labour. The burdens on institutions of this kind will be enormous—so great that in many cases, in view of their present financial difficulties, some may well have to close their doors. If that happens as a result of the tax, the Government will bear a very heavy responsibility if, instead of encouraging the expansion of such provision, they put a great burden on it.

We do not rest our case on any specific examples which have been given, powerful as these are. We are asking the Government to provide a measure of flexibility so that, should the need be proved to extend the definition of a qualified household, it will be possible to do so speedily. I very much regret that the Parliamentary Secretary has not accepted this modest Amendment and these powerful arguments, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will show their displeasure in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 143, Noes 198.

Division No. 152.]
AYES
[8.01 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eyre, Reginald
Lambton, Viscount


Astor, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Batsford, Brian
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Beamish, Col. Sir Turton
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bessell, Peter
Gower, Raymond
Longden, Gilbert


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony
Lubbock, Eric


Body, Richard
Gresham Cooke, R.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
MacArthur, Ian


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Rose&amp;Crom'ty)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gurden, Harold
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bromley-Davenport. Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Bruce-Gardyne J.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
McMaster, Stanley


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angue, N&amp;M)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Marten, Neil


Carlisle, Mark
Hawkins, Paul
Mathew, Robert


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus


Cary Sir Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill J. E. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Corfleld, F. V.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hooson, Emlyn
Neave, Airey


Dance, James
Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Doughty, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Pardoe, John


Eden, Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Peel, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Percival, Ian




Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sharples, Richard
Weatherill, Bernard


Pounder, Rafton
Sinclair, Sir George
Webster, David


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Summers, Sir Spencer
Whitelaw, William


Prior, J. M. L.
Temple, John M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Pym, Francis
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thorpe, Jeremy
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tilney, John
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Rees-Davies, W. R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wylie, N. R.


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan
Younger, Hn. George


Ridsdale, Julian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)



Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Royle, Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Mr. Jasper More and


Scott, Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. David Mitchell




NOES


Albu, Austen
Gregory, Arnold
Ogden, Eric


Alldritt, Walter
Grey, Charles (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian


Allen, Scholefield
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram, Albert E.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Orme, Stanley


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Oswald, Thomas


Beaney, Alan
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Pannen, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bishop, E. S.
Hamling, William
Park, Trevor


Blackburn, F.
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Haseldine, Norman
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Boston, Terence
Henig, Stanley
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boyden, James
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pentland, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hooley, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Horner, John
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Redhead, Edward


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howie, W.
Rees, Merlyn


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hoy, James
Richard, Ivor


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roebuck, Roy


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Rose, Paul


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hynd, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ryan, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Sheldon, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jeger, George (Goole)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Joseph


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Small, William


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dell, Edmund
Judd, Frank
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kelley, Richard
Stonehouse, John


Dickens, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Symonds, J. B.


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Tinn, James


Donnelly, Desmond
Ledger, Ron
Tomney, Frank


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Tuck, Raphael


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Urwin, T. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lomas, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


Eadie, Alex
Luard, Evan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ellis, John
McCann, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ennals, David
MacDermot, Niall
Wallace, George


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McGuire, Michael
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackintosh, John P.
Weitzman, David


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Finch, Harold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Floud, Bernard
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mason, Roy
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ford, Ben
Mayhew, Christopher
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Forrester, John
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Molloy, William
Woof, Robert


Gardner, A, J.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Ginsburg, David
Murray, Albert
Yates, Victor


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Newens, Stan



Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Neil McBride and




Mr. Walter Harrison.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move Amendment No. 160, in page 11, line 37, at the end to insert:
(d) add to or remove from the employers to whom section 3 of this Act applies any employer specified in the order and for that purpose amend the provisions of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act.

The Chairman: Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 162, in line 37, at end insert:
(d) amend the provisions of Part II or III of the said Schedule 1.

Amendment No. 161, in page 11, leave out lines 39 to 42.

Amendment No. 163, in page 11, leave out lines 43 to 44.

Mr. Macleod: That would indeed be convenient, Sir Eric. Although this is an important group of Amendments, I can deal with it briefly. We seek to take away subsection (2) from the Treasury and move it under the general authority of the Ministry of Labour. We are not seeking to do this out of affection for the Ministry of Labour, although we have an affection for that Department perhaps rather more than we have for the Treasury.
We wish to do this because while under subsection (3), which lays down that orders made under subsection (1)—that is, those made by the Minister of Labour—would be by affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons, with a draft laid before each House of Parliament, orders made under subsection (2) would be subject to annulment only in the ordinary way. We regard the matters in subsection (2) as of such importance that we feel that the affirmative procedure should be followed.
We suggest this because of the possibility of removing or adding names from the list of employers in Clause 3, which deals with public bodies—and this relates to Part I of the First Schedule; and the list of 22 bodies, starting with the National Coal Board and ending with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, is therein set out. We also wish that any provision which amends Parts II or III of that Schedule—that is, the excepted parts of undertakings and parts of undertakings qualifying for premium—should, likewise, be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The real reason is that we suspect that throughout the Bill there is an undue tenderness to the nationalised and public authorities and an unfairness in their relative treatment with their competitors in private enterprise. We saw that clearly in the debate, short though it was, about the oil companies and the unfair position there in relation to other providers of energy in the fuel and power sphere. We have seen it in passing—and may, with luck, come to it later tonight—when discussing the question of the very different treatment given to the retail branches of electricity and gas boards compared with their competitors in private enterprise.
For these reasons, we would like to see the eye of Parliament, and particularly of the House of Commons, more closely on Amendments moved under these two subsections, and we feel, therefore, that each and every one of them should be subject to the draft amendment procedure and to affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: This group of Amendments brings to mind two Kings of England, Henry VIII and James II. The Henry VIII Clause, as it was so called, was much stigmatised, the Financial Secretary will remember, by the late Lord Hewart in his Report on Ministers' powers, and subsequently in the Donoughmore Committee's Report, which stigmatised the growing practice of enabling Statutes to be amended by Orders.
The Statute which sets up the system should not contain within itself powers to amend itself by Order or, if it does, it should do so only with the greatest Parliamentary sanction. For that reason, I support the desire of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) to move the powers in subsection (2) into subsection (1), because thereby we would have the affirmative procedure which is a much greater safeguard and which does not offend to the same extent the Henry VIII Clause.
The other King, James II, of course, lost his throne because of his use of the suspending power, and particularly because of the disposing power as it has been exercised of late—the power to add


and subtract from Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule, which is one of the greatest taxation powers that the Executive could possibly take since they could, ad hominen, alter the incidence of taxation according to the people they favour or disfavour. This is a very strong thing to be able to do.
We had some discussion about whether or not the Steel Bill was a hybrid Measure. That discussion was very much on this point; that one could do these things not by particular instances but by classifications. I am surprised, reading through the Schedule, that the same point in regard to hybridity has not been referred to in this connection, although it is really water under the bridge by now. Certainly the ability to change named recipients—those who are favoured by a premium and those who are merely in the neutral zone—by Order is the strongest power one could imagine, particularly so when there is this atmosphere of favouritism already about.
Without wishing to labour the point further, particularly since the members of the Front Bench opposite will have it firmly in their mind, I suggest that the very least we should get is the affirmative Resolution procedure in all cases.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I was hoping that the Amendment was being moved because of a touching faith on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the Ministry of Labour. However, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) appropriately threw us a tiny bouquet, although that is all we managed to get out of the interchange. I should, perhaps, say at once that the Ministry of Labour has no imperial ambitions or desire to appear in a sphere in which it has so far had no responsibilities whatever.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, West explained the real point behind the Amendment, which is to exchange the negative Resolution procedure, which at present applies to Schedule 1 and the employers listed in Clause 3, for the affirmative procedure. As drafted, the Ministry of Labour Orders attract the affirmative procedure while the Treasury orders attract the negative procedure. This is for a very good reason. It is that under Clause 9 the spheres in which the

Ministry of Labour issues Orders—namely, under subsections (1,a), (1,b) and (l,c)—are broadly on matters which would not be debated in Parliament in advance.
They would come about in the normal administration of the Bill. For instance, subsection (1,c) empowers the Minister to substitute for the present Standard Industrial Classification a later addition of the classification or one amended by the issue of a specified list of amendments published by the Stationery Office. These are administrative matters which would not first come before the House of Commons. However, subsection (2), which is concerned with Treasury Orders, deals with matters which will have appeared before the House of Commons for Parliamentary debate—for example, if an industry were nationalised and added to Schedule 1, then that would be a matter for debate before it became part of that Schedule. It is for this reason that the distinction has been drawn. Therefore, we do not see the historical fears arising that the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) so graphically expressed, because in both cases there would be a clear Parliamentary safeguard.
A further reason is that it would be difficult for the Ministry of Labour to have the powers that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to give it, and that is that the Ministry has never been directly concerned with the nationalised industries. It has no responsibility for them in the sense of any financial responsibility, whereas the Treasury has that responsibility together with the nationalised industry Departments.
For those reasons, we are bound to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment on the grounds that it is trying to give a power that is not appropriate to the Ministry concerned and to bring in a method that would not provide any additional safeguard to that laid down.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I compliment the hon. Lady on that answer. It was a very good answer. It did not convince me at all, but it was as good an answer as one could possibly put forward. I shall not argue against it, purely because of time—we must have a few minutes, under this ludicrous Guillotine, to discuss


Clause 10. I therefore do not intend to divide the Committee, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(INTERPRETATION, ETC.)

Mr. Gunter: I beg to move Amendment No. 240, in page 12, line 37, after "mainly" to insert "(a)".
May I take Amendment No. 241 with this one, Mr. Irving?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Yes, if that is convenient to the Committee.

Mr. Gunter: The Amendment I have moved concerns a drafting point only. It deals with an omission in the Bill as drafted, in that it extends the definition of forestry in Clause 10(1) to include certain forestry operations which may be undertaken in the forest or at the roadside. It refers to the preparation of forest produce which would include such operations as peeling, crosscutting round timber to specification, cording, piling, stacking, cleaving, pointing, and the preparation of minor produce such as bean poles and faggots.
In addition to adding the preparation of produce, the Amendment makes it clear that the exception for operations carried out by sawmilling establishments applies to thinning, felling, and bringing to the roadside of timber and the preparation of forest produce in the forest and at the roadside. In the original definition——

Mr. Iain Macleod: I hope that the Minister is not trying to filibuster on his own Bill. We would be very ready to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Gunter: This is my last sentence. In the original definition, the exception might have been interpreted as applying only to felling and the bringing to the roadside of timber.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 43, leave out from "trespass" to "the" in line 45, and insert:
(b) except when carried out by sawmilling establishments, the thinning, felling and bringing

to the roadside of timber and the preparation of forest produce in the forest and at the roadside;
(c).

—[Mr. Gunter.]

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 337, in page 13, line 9, to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert:
(a) activities carried on for office purposes within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Offices. Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, but excluding

(i) drawing;
(ii) such activities falling under sub-head 1 of minimum list heading 702 in the Standard Industrial Classification; and
(iii) the activities of the shore establishments of companies owning or operating seagoing ships if and so long as, in the case of any such company, the number of persons normally employed as seagoing personnel in ships owned or operated by that company and any associated company or companies exceeds the number of persons otherwise employed in connection with the ownership or operation of such ships by the company and any such associated company or companies at its or their shore establishments; or.

The effect of the Amendment is merely to add to what already appears in paragraph (a) under the definition of non-qualifying activities the words that appear in sub-paragraph (iii) of the Amendment. It is concerned, therefore, to rectify an anomaly that appears to arise in the case of shipping companies.
When one looks at the activities listed under Clause 2(3,a) one finds they include any heading in Order XIX of the Standard Industrial Classification other than heading 709, and, therefore, include activities under heading 704 which is entitled "Sea Transport," and is subdivided into three subheads, the first of which reads:
The shore establishments of companies (including railways) operating sea-going ships for conveyance of either passengers or cargo.
But it excludes fishing vessels as classified under heading 003.
Sub-head 2 merely reads:
Shipping company (sea-going personnel).
Subhead 3 is concerned with pilotage only, which does not concern this argument.
It is clear from Clause 2(2) that a shipping company fulfils all the requirements of paragraph (a) of that subsection, but because the bulk of shore-based


personnel will be employed in almost every case only for the non-qualifying activities associated with office administration, they do not appear to fulfil the 50 per cent. rule of paragraph (b) unless the employment of the sea-going personnel is to be regarded as, in the words of subsection (2),
… in, or carried out from …
those office establishments. Since the sea-going personnel are expressly included in Subhead 2 of Heading 704, one would expect that it was intended that they were to be included. I say "one would expect", although I must add that I lost a lot of my faith in either logic or common sense governing the Bill.
However that may be, and whether or not this is an inadvertent slip, or whether I have misunderstood the Bill, the Bill appears to contain an inherent contradiction in that, when we refer back to Clause 44 of the Finance Bill—which is, so to speak, the parent legislation of this Selective Employment Payments Bill—we find that the sea-going personnel are excluded from the payment of S.E.T. because of subsection (2) of that Clause and, secondly, that to determine whether a person is employed for the purpose of the Selective Employment Tax under the Finance Bill one is obliged, by subsection (9) of Clause 44, to resort to the definition of "employed persons" appearing in the National Insurance Act, 1965.
That Act defines "employed persons" as those
… gainfully occupied in employment in Great Britain, being employment under a contract of service …
It is clear that, by the very nature of the employment of deep-sea personnel, they are not employed in Great Britain, and it would, therefore, seem to follow that they are not employed persons for the purposes of either the National Insurance Acts or the Finance Bill provisions relating to S.E.T. If they are not employed for the purposes of the Finance Bill, it is very difficult to see how they can be employed for the purposes of this Bill, which rests upon Clause 44 of the Finance Bill.
If they are not employed, not only will S.E.T. not be payable in respect of these deep-sea sailors because of the special provisions of the National Insurance Act,

but it would seem to follow that they cannot be taken into account for the purely head counting operation which is necessary to determine whether an undertaking fulfils the 50 per cent. rule of Clause 2(2,b). In that event, despite the specific inclusion of the minimum list Heading 704, the shipping companies will be excluded from Clause 2 because if their sea-going staff are excluded their employees will be overwhelmingly engaged in the non-qualifying office activities associated with the administration.
In this respect, the result will be a discrimination against the genuine private shipping company lines compared with the shipping services of British Railways or the nationalised airlines, which to a large extent compete directly with the shipping companies and not only qualify in respect of their engineering activities for a refund but for a premium. It would, of course, be a discrimination against an industry which in both earning and saving foreign exchange is important in relation to our balance of payments. I hope that this apparent contradiction will either be explained or put right, because I believe that it is rather more than an apparent contradiction.
8.30 p.m.
Two other matters should be mentioned. Although, in most cases, I think the great majority of cases, the seagoing personnel will far exceed the shore-based personnel of a shipping company, there may be a few cases in which that is not so and even when the sea-going personnel are included there would be less than 50 per cent. of the total employees employed in, so to speak, productive activities. For this reason, the Amendment contains the qualification that the office personnel shall be included only where they are, in fact, a minority compared with the sea-going personnel.
It will be remembered that in Section 85 of last year's Finance Act special provisions were introduced in favour of companies managing and operating ships whether or not those companies actually own the ships they operate. There were provisions among other things for what have become known as management companies. It would be logical to expect the same principle to apply under this Bill. Hence the reference in the Amendment


to operating of ships as well as management of ships and also to associated companies. In many cases management companies are not necessarily owners of the ships or their subsidiaries.
I refer back to the White Paper on the Selective Employment Tax and to page 16, paragraph 5, which makes quite clear that it was the intention that the shipping companies should be included in this neutral zone, that is, in receipt of refund. The first sentence of that paragraph says:
It is not intended that the tax should fall effectively upon transport, that is on establishments within order XIX of the Classification, with the exception of heading 709—Miscellaneous services and storage …
At the foot of the page there is a reference to shipping, airlines and inland waterways which, with ports and airports, will generally have the tax refunded, although there are exceptions such as shops and restaurants which have no bearing on the present argument.
I refer, also, to the Government Amendment No. 242, which we welcome so far as it goes. I am sure that the Minister appreciates that it does not cover this question, although it is welcome because it brings into this category such companies as oil companies which use and operate their own sea transport for the importation of their own goods.

Mr. Gunter: May I immediately point out to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) that there is a misunderstanding which I thought we had carefully explained to the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, which naturally was worried by the same arguments which the hon. Member has adduced. It formed the impression that mariners on foreign going agreements would not be employed persons for the purposes of Clause 2 and in consequence office workers would in many cases outnumber those mariners and could be counted as employed on a shore base. However, the only large class of mariners who will not be employed persons for the purposes of this Bill are persons not domiciled or having a place of residence in the United Kingdom, for example, lascars, seamen engaged in Asia.
Generally speaking, British seafarers will count. In almost all cases, British seafarers employed from an establishment

will outnumber the office staff at that establishment and, consequently the refunds will be payable. This information has been conveyed to the Chamber of Shipping, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it without my going into too much detail about the derivation of that authority.
The second point is that a substantial number of seafarers are employed by ship-owning companies which have very few shore staff, the management of the ships being undertaken by specialist management companies which have substantial office staffs but few or no seafarers. This group of amendments, by aggregating companies owning or operating seagoing ships, would make such office workers qualify for the refund so long as the seafarers employed by the ship-owning companies outnumbered the office workers employed by both the owning and managing companies. By aggregating the employees of different employers, the Amendment conflicts with the principle used throughout the Bill that each employer is considered separately and then each establishment of that employer is so dealt with.
In view of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now not press his Amendment.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: With this Amendment, we are taking a number of others, including Amendment No. 324, in particular.
I do not believe that the Government have begun to appreciate the way in which the Bill will operate even in respect of manufacturing enterprises. Amendment No. 324 deals, among other things, with activities by way of erection of plant and machinery within an establishment. I do not know whether the Government have appreciated that the effect of this tax is going to put up the capital cost of erecting new plant and machinery which will be nowhere near offset by the premiums returned to the firm which operates that plant and machinery.
If I may give the Committee one or two figures on this, they are very revealing. I might say that the figures are based on an accurate calculation of how this will work out in practice. To take a large chemical plant which is to be erected at a cost of £4 million, it has been calculated that because the contractor


putting up that plant comes into the building industry and does not get the premium or refunds, the additional capital cost that will be incurred will be about £40,000. That covers the contractor's own staff, his fees, and also any costs incurred by the chemical manufacturer himself in design procurement, because they will not qualify either. If one takes an opportunity rate of roughly 10 per cent., one gets an extra cost applicable to the capital of £4,000 a year.
Assuming that the plant could operate with about 40 men who qualify for both the refund and the premium, the premium would come to £16 each, or a total of about £640 per annum. In other words, one has a capital intensive activity—a new plant of this sort obviously will increase enormously the productivity of the firm and the whole nation—and the effect of the Selective Employment Tax, as at present drawn up in the Bill, is to impose on that firm an extra annual cost of about £4,000, only to be offset with a benefit of about £640.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to address his mind to this, because that will happen to firms which erect large-scale capital plant up and down the country. The whole thing has been presented to the Committee, to the House and to the whole country as if it is going to confer benefits to manufacturing industry. However, unless Amendment No. 324 is accepted, it will make such firms infinitely worse off.
The truth is, as was pointed out in the Chemical Trade Journal, that this is taxation gone made. How many times must the Minister of Labour, as he enjoyed his rest and recuperation in the Stilly Isles, have been wishing that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not listened to the Hungarian rhapsody and had resisted the temptation to go in for the sort of gimmicky stunt of a tax of this sort which will add complication to complication and, in the case of the instance that I have quoted, will add substantially to industrial costs.

Mr. Iain Lloyd: I should like to refer the Committee briefly to the question of the shipping industry. I think the Minister of Labour is leaving the Committee under

a false impression as to the degree of satisfaction which the shipping industry feels about the concessions that he has made. I am sure the shipping industry welcomes the fact that he has made it possible for the shore establishments to be counted as part of the shipping industry. What a ludicrous situation it would have been—it would have been ludicrousness upon ludicrousness, if I may so express it—if the shipping firms of this country were not to have their essential shore-based departments counted as part of the industry.
I should like to refer to the question of Asian crews. This cannot be discounted as lightly as the right hon. Gentleman apparently wishes it to be. There are in the United Kingdom shipping industry 115,000 seafarers domiciled in the United Kingdom. There are 40,000 not domiciled in the United Kingdom. Of those, about 30,000 are recruited abroad. Those 40,000 represent a very substantial segment of the sea-going staff of this most important industry in this country. It would be anomalous to the highest degree to exclude these companies when their ratios have been calculated for the benefit of the very provisions which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced for the other companies of which he has spoken. This would introduce a rather strange form of discrimination against which I would have thought hon. Members opposite particularly would set their faces.
I should like to confirm a point which I made, that the shipping industry is not satisfied with this situation. In his Press release two days ago, the President of the Chamber of Shipping said:
We have made urgent and repeated representations to the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour but, apart from two amendments to rectify obvious anomalies, we look like being bogged down in this morass of uncertainty, unless there is a change of heart on the part of the Government when the Committeee stage of the Bill is resumed and concluded in the House of Commons on Monday.
This is clear evidence that the industry is far from satisfied. It has made representations but the answer that it has received is far from satisfactory.
I would not expect the Government to change their mind, because we all know that they have not got a mind, but if the right hon. Gentleman will show that he has still got a heart of gold, perhaps he will change his heart.

Mr. Corfield: I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply, unless it is based on the supposition that "in Great Britain" includes "on a British registered ship". Then, of course, we include the overseas seamen to whom my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. MacDermot: The point which the hon. Gentleman may have overlooked in my right hon. Friend's reply is that these people will be treated as being employed from the shore-based establishments.

Mr. Corfield: I am obliged. On the assurances that the right hon. Gentleman has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 13, line 15, after "goods", insert "by road".—[Mr. Gunter.]

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 113, in page 13, line 15, after "goods", to insert:
otherwise than within or between premises occupied".
I do not think that the Amendment needs much advocacy. It seems clear that this is something that ought to be excluded. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be as forthcoming as he was on a former Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 140, Noes 198.

Division No. 153.]
AYES
[8.45 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Astor, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pardoe, John


Balniel, Lord
Heseltine, Michael
Peel, John


Batsford, Brian
Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian


Bessell, Peter
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Blaker, Peter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pounder, Rafton


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hooson, Emlyn
Prior, J. M. L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Francis


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buchanan Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Chichester-Clark, R.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott, Nicholas


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lambton, Viscount
Sharples, Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Longden, Gilbert
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Lubbock, Eric
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thorpe, Jeremy


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
MacArthur, Ian
Tilney, John


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Vickers, Dame Joan


Doughty, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Eden, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliott, R. W.(N'tie-upon-Tyne. N,)
Marten, Neil
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Mathew, Robert
Webster, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Worsley, Marcus


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wylie, N. R.


Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. David Mitchell and


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Anthony Grant.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Gourlay, Harry
Ogden, Eric


Alldritt, Walter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
O'Malley, Brian


Allen, Scholefield
Gregory Arnold
Oram, Albert E.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orme, Stanley


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, Thomas


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Palmer, Arthur


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Park, Trevor


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Blackburn, F.
Hamling, William
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Boardman, H.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Booth, Albert
Haseldine, Norman
Pentland, Norman


Boston, Terence
Hazell, Bert
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Henig, Stanley
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Boyden, James
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hooley, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Horner, John
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Redhead, Edward


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Rees, Merlyn


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Richard, Ivor


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Howie, W.
Roebuck, Roy


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, James
Rose, Paul


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Entry (Ayrshire, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ryan, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheldon, Robert


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, Adam
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Slater, Joseph


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Small, William


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dell, Edmund
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Symonds, J. B.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Judd, Frank
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dickens, James
Kelley, Richard
Tinn, James


Dobson, Ray
Kenyon, Clifford
Tomney, Frank


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Tuck, Raphael


Donnelly, Desmond
Lawson, George
Urwin, T. W.


Dunn, James A.
Ledger, Ron
Varley, Eric G.


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Eadie, Alex
Luard, Evan
Wallace, George


Ellis, John
McBride, Neil
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ennals David
McCann, John
Weitzman, David


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
MacDermot, Niall
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McGuire, Michael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)



Mackintosh, John P.
Whitaker, Ben


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Whitlock, William


Finch, Harold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Willams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Peter (Preston. S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Manuel, Archie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Floud, Bernard
Mapp, Charles
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Foley, Maurice
Mason, Roy
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mayhew, Christopher
Winterbottom, R. E.


Ford, Ben
Mendelson, J. J.
Woodbum, Rt. Hn. A.


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woof, Robert


Fowler, Gerry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Molloy, William
Yates, Victor


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Galpern, Sir Myer
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gardner, A. J.
Newens, Stan
Mr. Charles Grey and


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Mr. R. W. Brown.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Norwood, Christopher

It being after eight minutes to Nine o'clock (the House having resolved itself into the Committee at eight minutes to Four o'clock), The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [18th July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded

at that hour, including the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given:

Amendments made: In page 13, line 18, leave out from "by" to "company" in line 21, and insert "an associated".

In page 14, line 8, at end insert:
or treat different premises so occupied as constituting the site of a single establishment".

In page 14, line 10, after "are" insert:
or, as the case may be, are not".

In page 14, line 17, after "(5)", insert:
Where any minimum list heading in the Standard Industrial Classification contains express provision that a specified activity is excluded from or included in that heading if it is carried on at premises attached to premises of a specified class, and but for that express provision that activity would have fallen under that or, as the case may be, some other minimum list heading, that express provision shall be deemed to be omitted; but, save as provided by the foregoing provisions of this subsection,".

In page 14, line 20, at end add:
(6) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) a person's employment shall not be treated as employment in, or carried out from, any establishment unless it is an establishment of that person's employer;
(b) establishments shall be treated as associated if, and only if, they are establishments of the same employer or of associated companies;
(c) two companies shall be treated as associated if, and only if, one of them is a subsidiary of the other or both are subsidiaries of a third company.—[Mr. Gunter.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(REFUNDS IN RESPECT OF OLD-AGE PENSIONERS.)

Where any employer who is not a charity to which section 5 of this Act applies has paid selective employment tax for any contribution week in respect of any man over 65 years of age or any woman over 60 years of age employed by him in an employment to which neither section 1 nor section 2 of this Act applies and which is not an excepted employment, then subject to the provisions of section 7 of this Act, the Minister of Labour shall make to that employer in respect of that person and that week a payment of an amount equal to the tax paid.—[Miss Pike.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss Pike: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I approached our last Amendment with a certain optimism because I felt that I was arguing a case which could not be

refuted by hon. Members opposite. But that very small and important concession having been resisted, I do not approach my present argument with the same optimism. I hope that hon. Members opposite will listen to the argument and not approach it, as all our previous arguments this evening have been approached, with a sort of boredom and lethargy which shows that they are determined to stonewall through to the end of the evening, giving way on nothing at all.
The group of people we talk about in the Clause will be more cruelly hit by the tax than almost any other section of the community. This was true when the tax was first introduced, and, as we have said on previous Amendments in the past few days, it is more than ever true in the new circumstances in which we now find ourselves, and in the new circumstances which are bound to arise in the months ahead. Because of the very savage deflationary measures that the Government have taken, the old-age pensioners, particularly those in employment, will be very cruelly hit.
Surely the Government have some regard for the social effects of the very savage financial measures they are taking? We have heard arguments this evening which go to refute the idea that social considerations can be weighed in the balance and were told that one must look only at the purely economic considerations and the universality of the taxes that are being raised.
There are certainly very strong economic arguments for accepting the Amendment, but the social arguments, the human arguments, are the most important when we approach this very important subject. All hon. Members accept that it is desirable, in the interests of the older people themselves and the community and the strength of our community life, that the older people should be encouraged to go on working and to go on taking a part in the community. There are at present about 7·3 million people of pensionable age and over, that is, 15·2 per cent. of the total population. It is expected that by 1976 the number will rise to 8½ million, about 16·2 per cent. of the total population. In 1964, the expectation of life of a male at birth was 68 years 6 months and of a female—we are, after all, the stronger sex—74


years 7 months. At 60 the expectation of life was 75 years 4 months. At 60, the expectation of life of a male was 15 years 4 months and of a female 19 years 7 months. This compares with an expectation of life at birth of 61 years 4 months for a man and 71 years 5 months for a woman in the years 1950–52, and an expectation of life at 60 of 14 years 8 months for a man and 18 years 1 month for a woman in the same period.
9.0 p.m.
Thus, not only are more people reaching pensionable age but they are living longer once they reach their sixties. Moreover, if we have a break-through, as we all think we shall, in the attack on such diseases as cancer which take such a toll of people in their sixties, there will be a great many more people of pensionable age and a much larger problem in this respect than we have thought of hitherto.
I direct my argument, first, to the social aspect of the matter. These people, having lived their lives in gainful employment and having had a place in society which gave them a feeling of belonging and making a real contribution to the well being of the community and the future of the nation suffer a most cruel blow if, quite suddenly, they are thrown out of employment and on to the scrap-heap. We have all recognised this over the years. The need to encourage the employment of older people was recognised, for example, in 1953 terms in the Report of the Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women. I shall quote some extracts from that Report. It is important to have them before us and take them into consideration now. This is what is said on page 15.
It is the Government's policy to maintain a high and stable level of employment for all who want to work and are fit to do so, and we are sure that there should be no age limit to this. Neither from a human nor an economic angle can a limitation of employment opportunities for older people who want to work be regarded as a tolerable permanent solution for unemployment.
It has been argued that to encourage more employment amongst older people is inconsistent with the movement towards increased leisure, in the form of holidays with pay and shorter hours of work, which is one of the fruits of technical progress. We do not think that this need be so. Indeed, increased leisure for all, old and young, is one of the good things which we can have as a result

of the full use of all our resources, including the valuable capital asset that lies in the accumulated skill and experience of those men and women who are able and eager to work but prevented by age restrictions. Increased leisure may be a good thing, but enforced leisure in the form of unsought unemployment is at any age wasteful and harmful from the point of view of the nation as well as the individual.
This has always been accepted. We on this side of the House have accepted it in all our legislation and it was against that background that we framed our financial and social legislation. Hon. Members opposite in their arguments on welfare and social policy have always brought it forward as one of the prime factors to be taken into account. In approaching this matter, Ministers must recognise the importance of it generally and the medical evidence which shows how people begin to disintegrate once they feel that their opportunities for gainful employment and a place in the world are past.
We need a more flexible policy towards the employment of older people. In some cases it might be permissible, and even a good thing, to retire people at the minimum pensionable age, but in most cases there is no reason why a man of 65 should not continue at work. In the last few weeks, the Yorkshire Council of Social Service has published the report of a working party on preparation for retirement. One of the most telling passages in that report observes that
while retirement occurs in its present form—suddenly without regard for a man's capacities and abilities, often involving a sharp decline in status and earnings overnight—it is bound to be deeply disturbing experience for many.
Clearly, apart from the emphasis on preparation for retirement, gradual retirement through going on to part-time work avoids the sudden and complete break with a long routine.
Of course, it is this part-time work and the part-time worker that have to suffer as a result of the Selective Employment Tax. He is the man who, on the whole, is the less economic for the employer to keep on his books; he is the man most easily dispensed with; and he is the man who, on the whole, will suffer the most serious injury because of this Bill.
As recently as 27th April of this year there was a Ministry of Labour Press notice of which I have a copy here,


issued about the National Joint Advisory Council. It says:
The National Joint Advisory Council, under the chairmanship of Mr. Ray Gunter, Minister of Labour, at its meeting today, Wednesday, 27th April, 1966, discussed the problem of the employment of older workers; received further reports on fee-charging employment agencies … and had a further discussion of Part VI of the Factories Act.
The point about this is that it says:
The National Joint Advisory Council approved proposals put forward by the Minister for a new approach to the employment of older workers.
At the end it says that a new initiative by local officers of the Ministry of Labour in placing older workers should be intensified and a more sophisticated approach should be taken to the whole problem.
Is this the more sophisticated approach which, we are led to believe, the Ministry would take towards this problem? If so, it is a very cruel one and a very harsh one for these people.
What sort of work do the people in this group I am pleading for by this new Clause do on the whole? Last year, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance carried out an inquiry into the type of work being done by retirement pensioners, and the result of that inquiry was published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette of July, 1965, on page 307. This shows that the majority of pensioners were employed for the most part in occupations other than production processes. It says that
the proportion employed in production processes was only 12 per cent.
of the total. It goes on:
Pensioners were employed for the most part in occupations other than production processes".
So, on the whole, it is the old people remaining in employment after reaching retirement age who will have no help and no hope from this tax.
As regards part-time work, anybody who employs a person more than eight hours a week has to pay the employer's part of the insurance contribution, and now, on top of this, has to pay this tax, making some 38s. 4d. a week in all, and that apart from the salary or wages. It is inevitable, therefore, that employers will look at this section of the community

very hard. Let us also recognise this fact, that when an employer is considering which of his people he will, very reluctantly, lay off as a result of the deflationary measures which we all know are bound to take place within the next few months, and when he weighs up the many difficult circumstances he has, first and foremost, to weigh up the economic requirements and resources of his own firm, its financial requirements, because of those circumstances, getting more and more stringent the whole time; then, if he has on his books two men of equal capacity, one of them a young man with a family, probably an unskilled worker, but still, a young man with a family, and with the whole of his working life ahead of him, and the other an older man doing, may be, the same job, but getting towards the end of his working life, the employer is bound to say that he will keep on the younger man and get rid of the older man.
It is the older man who will not be able to benefit from any training scheme, who will not be able to retrain, not be able to move into one of the development districts, not be able to move into one of the new industries requiring the new skills which we want to see. It may be that the upheaval will be the greater for the younger man, if he is moved, and has to find another house for his family and another school for his children, and all the rest of it. That is a harsh necessity which we are having to face at the present time. Still, it should be the younger man who should be driven to the new training schemes to attain new skills, in order to make, may be in another part of the country, his contribution to the economy.
This is not how it will work. Let us weigh the balance slightly in favour of the older person, the retirement pensioner. If he is a part-time worker, he is doubly penalised by the tax. The very fact of being a retirement pensioner, in any case, will mean that he is the person who will go on the scrap heap. He will have no chance of using the facilities of retraining.
I base the larger part of my argument on the social and humanitarian aspects of the tax. I have said before—I do not mind how many times I repeat it—that we have all paid lip service to the fact


that we believe that people should be eased into retirement. People should be enabled to go on working and contributing for as long as possible in their active life. We recognise that people are living longer. They are fitter. The resources of medicine and science make it possible for people to go on. We all recognise that the new techniques of industry make it possible for older people, with their experience, to go on using their skills, because nowadays often great exertion is not required of them. The great majority of these people are people who will be in non-productive industry.
If the Chief Secretary will not pay regard to my plea based on the humanitarian aspect, he probably will listen to Professor Titmuss, who, after all, is one of his party's advisers on social and welfare policies. In a letter to The Times of 11th May, 1966, the professor wrote thus:
Amidst all the anguished cries from service industries and the arguments of economists for 'efficient resource allocation' the social policy aspects of the proposed payroll tax are in grave danger of being forgotten.
Do we or do we not wish to encourage the employment, part-time or full-time, of older men and women and the rehabilitation of the disabled and the handicapped?
Unless amendments are made to exclude these groups (administratively this would not present great difficulties) the social and psychological effects—as well as the purely financial—could be serious and far-reaching.
I find it odd that at a time when a number of countries are becoming more conscious of the social aspects of budgetary and economic instruments Britain would seem to be moving in a reverse direction.
I will not read all the letter. I am sure that the Chief Secretary has read it.
If the Chief Secretary will not take into consideration the social aspects, will he take into consideration the economic aspects of the contribution these people can make? These people, who often make a contribution part-time, are sustaining many valuable organisations. This is not directly relevant to my argument, but earlier we discussed an Amendment designed to give some relief to private nursing homes, private institutions, private organisations of all kinds. We failed in our attempt to get some flexibility written into the law.
Many old-age pensioners are giving their services part-time to such organisations, organisations which, because of this tax, will be badly strained in seeking to give a service at an economic price. When it comes to looking after older people, people in their early sixties are just the people who can do this, because they have the understanding. They have a rapport with old people. Much of this welfare work, which is extraordinarily important and which is in danger at present, is done by people of pensionable age. This is apart from the many other skilled occupations in which such people engage.
9.15 p.m.
They can make a very real contribution to the country's economy, because, while they are earning money, they are able to provide for their old age, they are able to add to their savings, they are able to add to their pension rights, they are able to build up their independence, and so on. At the moment, of course, they are seeing their savings being whittled away by inflation, but at least they are able to run hard to keep pace with this.
At the same time, they are to a great extent keeping themselves out of the ambit of the social security departments. Many of these people, if they stop earning, will have to apply for supplementary benefits for their rent and rates. Their added earnings enable them to stand on their own feet, to pay their own way, and they keep them from being a charge on the State.
But even if the right hon. Gentleman will not take those two arguments into consideration, I hope that he will take the final, and I believe the most powerful argument of all, into consideration, namely, the rate at which the value of the pension is dropping. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the August edition of the Pensioners' Voice. It does not need good eyesight to read the heading on this issue—" We speak for the older generation". Under the banner headline of "Down and down it goes", it says:
According to a reply given in the House of Commons on Monday, 27th June, the value of the 12s. 6d. increase, granted to single pensioners in March, 1965, has now dropped by 5s. The value of the 21s. given to married couples has dropped by 8s. 2d. To get back to March, 1965, conditions, single pensioners require an immediate increase of 5s. 8d. and married couples 9s. 2d. The value of the single


pension is therefore back to £3 14s. 10d. and for married couples £6 0s. 10d. Pensioners are running like mad and getting nowhere. If the pension drops in the next 16 months as it has during the past, then the single pension will be worth £3 7s. 6d. and the married pension £5 10s. This is where we came in.
Can the right hon. Gentleman categorically tell the House that during the next few months he will be able to keep the pension level with its present value? Is it not the fact that the value of the pension will constantly be eroded by the difficulties which lie ahead?
These people, who can be gainfully employed to build up their own security, should command the sympathy and the attention of the Government. Many of them have taken on commitments. They have done so foolishly, but they have done so because they believed in the promises of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. What we are asking is that the Government should slightly weight the balance in their favour. When the decision is made as to who should be laid off and who should be kept on, as to who should leave and who should go for retraining, or, in the case of old-age pensioners, whether they should go on the scrap heap, we ask that the judgment should be marginally weighted in favour of these older people, because we believe that on every count they should command the respect and the attention of the nation. They have given us splendid help in the past. It is our turn to make certain that we help them over the next few difficult months.

Mr. Gower: My first reaction was that the Government could hardly reject the principle behind the Clause, but I have an uneasy feeling that they will do just that, because I remember our earlier attempts, during our debates on the Finance Bill, and on the earlier stages of this Bill, when hon. Members on these and the Liberal benches tried to obtain a measure of alleviation of the difficulties which will be faced by persons in this and other categories.
It is hard to believe that a Labour Government will say "No" on this occasion When the Labour Party was in opposition, on these benches, hon. Gentlemen used to speak in moving terms about the plight of the older people. I do not blame them for that. It is a natural thing for them to have done. But

it would be wholly inconsistent tonight if, having said those things not so long ago, they should now take a decision which ran so contrary to the views previously expressed by them. As my hon. Friend pointed out in her latter remarks, it is almost impossible under present conditions for any Government to give to elderly people the sort of pension that we would deem to be entirely satisfactory.
No hon. Member on either side of the Committee would say that the retirement pension, even as supplemented, has at any time been entirely adequate. It therefore behoves any Government to study every possible method by which the standards of living of those in the retirement age bracket may be improved, to make up for the inevitable inadequacies of the State scheme.
However the Minister may try to disguise or cover up the issue, these provisions are a discouragement to the employers of elderly people. They cannot be otherwise. They are a distinct disincentive to employers of the old. This is a serious matter. It is doubly serious in some parts of the country, where the elderly congregate in even greater numbers—constituencies like those represented by some hon. Members now present—but in all parts of the country it is a serious matter for the elderly.
In pressing our Amendments we have been told two things. First, we have been told that the Bill has an economic purpose, and that nothing must be done in any way to deviate our course from it. Secondly, we have been told that there are apparently insuperable technical difficulties. There may be other arguments, but I want to deal with those two.
Let us consider the great economic purpose. The Minister cannot possibly say that the concession of the principle in the Clause would in any way interfere with the basic economic purpose, because the purpose—we are told—is to encourage the movement of more and more people from the service and neutral industries into the productive industries. We know that people of these ages are employed predominantly in the service and neutral industries rather than the productive industries.
If we succeed in moving these elderly persons from their present employment it is hardly conceivable that they will move


into productive industry. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not suggest that the concession of the principle embodied in the Clause would in any way diminish the economic purpose of the Bill, or affect it adversely. That would be completely fallacious.
We have been told of these apparently insuperable technical difficulties. The Government have shown great ingenuity in solving other technical difficulties, and in a case like this I would have thought that they would make the maximum effort to overcome those difficulties. I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the beneficial aspects of employment in one's years of retirement. I well remember seeing an article dealing with persons in comparable employment at different ages.
The comparison was made there between bank officers—clerks and managers—who tend to retire at an early age and my own profession, the lawyers, who go on working to a very great age——

Sir G. Nabarro: Do not believe it.

Mr. Gower: It is a fact. My hon. Friend must accept this——

Sir G. Nabarro: No.

Mr. Gower: Bank officers as a body tend to die at a much earlier age than solicitors, who go on working to a later age——

Sir G. Nabarro: Look how much money they make.

Mr. Gower: If my hon. Friend likes to look at the statistics which give details of different employments, he will find that those who retire young or at a fixed age tend to have a much shorter retirement, unfortunately, and tend to die at a younger age than those who, by the nature of their employment, work to a greater age. This is a fact.
It should, therefore, also be the objective of the Government to take no steps which will suddenly terminate the employment of the elderly. This is a social purpose. These are the things which we have in mind. I hope that the Government will not give us the sort of answer which we have had in the past about the elderly and the disabled. It would be intolerable to hear those arguments in response to a new Clause of this kind.
This does not conflict with the objective of their Bill. It is necessary if we are to retain in employment anything like the present proportion of the elderly. Let the Government take no decision tonight which will make nonsense of so much which they have professed in the past.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: Much water has flowed under the bridge since the recent General Election campaign and, unfortunately, a large amount of our gold and dollar reserves seems to have flowed with it. But some of us can still remember some of the speeches during that campaign, especially the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
We will sit the burdens on the shoulders of those able to carry them, on the strongest and not the weakest.
But that, of course, was before the election, and not since.
It has become quite clear, during the debates on this tax, that it will bear particularly hard on those least able to stand on their own feet. We have heard from the Treasury Bench two arguments in response to these points. The first is that it is a subsidy and an encouragement for the employment of old, disabled or sick people in manufacturing industry. That, of course, one accepts. It is true also that it is a tax not on the employee, but on the employer.
However, even given those two points, it is clear that, for about 600,000 or 650,000 retirement pensioners in the service industries, this will be a factor which will severely mitigate against their continued employment. Many of these people will be working part time for a small salary, £4, £5, or £6 a week, perhaps, on which an impost of 25s.—or 12s. 6d. for a woman—will be a substantial increase and a disincentive for their employment.
I find it difficult to believe that the Chief Secretary will say later that he cannot accept this and that he will react in the stony-hearted way in which he reacted earlier. His right hon. Friend said on 25th May that he found three advantages to the tax. I confess that I have not been so lucky. The third advantage, he said,
… of the Selective Employment Tax is that it is capable of very great variation and flexibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 651.]


If it is, let it be demonstrated. Let it be demonstrated here tonight by the Chief Secretary. I find it difficult to understand why the Government do not do this. Surely it is not because it would undermine the principles of the Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman claims that the flexibility inherent in the tax is one of its great virtues.
Surely the loss of revenue would not be significant. Even in absolute terms this cannot be claimed. If we bring into the balance common humanity, the cost is derisory. Surely administrative inconvenience cannot be claimed. This cannot weigh very heavily in the balance, because this is one of the few groups of people which is comparatively easy to define. They have to pay a different stamp, they have a different coloured card, and administratively it would be comparatively simply and easily done to exempt them from the tax. Why not?
I hope that the presence on the Treasury Bench of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance does not mean that, in the terms which have become so drearily familiar to us at Question Time, the Chief Secretary will stand up and say how passionately he is concerned for this group of people, how no group warrants our help more and how proud he is of all that his party has done for them but that nevertheless today he will do nothing. I hope that he will not do that, but that he will find a way of helping a group of people who greatly need help.
Previously, I have argued that the tax lacks both common humanity and economic logic. It is still not too late for the Chief Secretary, in his reply to the debate, to give it a little of each of these two qualities. It may be the eleventh hour, but let him now repent.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: This is such an important discussion that I am sorry that it is so unevocative of interest on the Government benches.

Dame Irene Ward: One solitary Government back-bench Member present.

Mr. Worsley: One solitary Member—whom we are very glad to see.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend note that the Labour Party in the House is 363 strong, that 357 are Missing and

that only six are here? I take from the 357 one in respect of yourself, Mr. Irving, making it 356 who are absent.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is entirely in order in referring to the benches opposite him, but it would be better if he did not refer to the Chair.

Mr. Worsley: I have not my hon. Friend's statistical skill, but it was a point well worth making.
It seems to me that this is one of the most important of all the discussions on the Bill. People approaching retirement age have a choice before them. They can retire suddenly. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) had some interesting statistics comparing his own profession with another. There was this virtue in what he said—that the most undesirable thing a person wishes to do at this time is, having been working full-time, suddenly to revert to not working at all.
There are many people approaching retirement age who think that this would be Utopia and that when they come to the time that they need not get up in the morning to go to work, this would be a happy existence. The fact is that, confronted with a week or two of this, many of them realise that, far from being Utopia, it is a minor sort of hell.
What ought to be happening and what the House ought to be encouraging is a gradual change of gear from full 100 per cent. employment, through a period of less exacting employment, to something less than full-time work and finally to retirement. It should be a cardinal feature of the policies of all parties to enable this to happen. It should be, but the Bill is directly and absolutely opposed to this idea.
Already, the present system, when one thinks of the period before 6th September, militates against the sort of approach to employment of the elderly to which I am referring. Under the National Insurance Scheme, the earnings rule, and so on, one must even now stamp a card—I am not referring to the graduated pension aspect—in respect of a retirement pensioner or someone nearing retiring age, in exactly the same way as someone in full employment. And now, in addition, there will be this 25s. a week impost on each man.
I assure the Committee that this will inevitably mean that a great number of employers, with the best will in the world, will find this additional 25s. the marginal difference between being able to employ such a person and not being able to do so. This sum could be the critical amount and, in any case, it is an imposition which is directly against the desirable objective of the employment of the elderly.
Figures already show that the incidence of unemployment increases as people get towards retirement age. I recently received a Written Answer from the Ministry of Labour indicating the steep rise which takes place in unemployment among people in the last five years before retirement. I am thinking of the period immediately before retirement, although the principle is the same. It is that as people get near to retirement age they become more difficult to employ.
A few minutes ago I was reading in the Library an account of recent moves in the American Congress. It appears that last year the Americans legislated to protect older people from discrimination in employment. It is a sorry day when the Americans are more advanced in matters of social legislation than we are. We used to take pride in leading the world in this sphere, but today the Labour Government are imposing a burden in respect of older people which is bound to be disastrous in many cases.
Apart from this, many employers take a pride in producing employment—part time or half time—for a number of elderly people. These employers have thought that they deserved a slight pat on the back for being able to do something valuable for the community as a whole. From 6th September they will be told, "You must pay an extra 25s. for each person you employ, elderly or otherwise." I fear that they will reply, "If that is your attitude, and all the encouragement we get for trying to provide employment for the elderly, we will not bother to try." It is important that we take a lead in following advanced and humane employment policies for the elderly. If we do not take a lead, how can we expect employers to do so?

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Irving, and I apolo-

gise for my earlier indiscretion in referring to you as a Labour hon. Member. That is historically accurate but possibly unpropitious.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not out of order in referring to me personally as a Labour hon. Member but for referring to the Chair at all in this context.

Sir. G. Nabarro: I was not talking about the Chair but about Members. But I must pass on to the matters with which this very important new Clause is concerned. It will not have escaped your attention, Mr. Irving, that with new Clause 1 we are debating new Clause No. 17, "Refunds in respect of workers over 60." New Clause 17 stands in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Torquay (Sir. F. Bennett), Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), Hertfordshire, South-west (Mr. Longden) and myself, and its terms are indistinguishable in their import and purport from those of new Clause 1.
In the House, of course, the Opposition always takes the side of the retirement pensioners, and always pleads at great length and with great eloquence and force that they are badly treated and insufficiently remunerated, and that the community as a whole does not have sufficient regard to their interests. In fact, I think that the House dwells too much on the amount of the monetary pension, if I may call it that—the sum paid every week in the retirement pension—and too little on the social consequences which would flow from a policy of enlarging the area of suitable employment for men over 65 years of age and for women over the age of 60 years; in other words, incentives to keep them at work.
It is now 12 years since the Phillips Committee reported to this House on the problems of the elderly. I remember that an important debate then was on the question of the earnings rule for retirement pensioners. There was a Minority Report on that subject, which was, of course, written by Professor Cairncross, later recruited by a Tory Government as a Principal Economic Adviser and kept on by the present Labour Government as a Principal Economic Adviser. Professor Cairncross's Minority Report advocated to encourage the continuance of full-time


employment of men over 65 years until 70 years and women over the age of 60 until the age of 65, the total abolition of the earnings rule. I am glad to see assent nodded by an hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite.
These are matter of history and fact, but this Government never take any notice of their economic advisers—[Interruption.]—I was coming to it—save the two notable exceptions that inevitably prove the rule, manifest at the present time by the surfeit of Hungarian goulash delivered to us, and notably the Selective Employment Tax.
The point I am trying to make is that we should not be concerned with the monetary amount of the retirement pension but much more largely concerned with adequate and appropriate employment in industry and the services of men and women who are no longer young enough to be agile, nimble-fingered, mobile and rapid in piece work. That is the principle. In factories, and in times of normal competition for labour, a young woman of 21 or 22 will invariably secure a job in competition with a young man of 21 or 22 because she is more nimble-fingered and agile and is capable of producing more. [Interruption.]. I mean producing more in the factory. So right up the scale. It is indubitably the fact that in times of deflation, which we are now entering, an employer presented with the choice of whether he retains in his employment a man of 45 or a man of 65 will always retain the man of 45 and dispense with the man of 65.
9.45 p.m.
I dwell on this point about deflation for a moment. We have heard 20 times over during the course of the Committee Stage of the Bill that the purpose of the Selective Employment Tax is deflationary. We heard from the Prime Minister a few days ago his objective, clearly stated, is 1½ per cent. to 2 per cent. unemployment, arithmetically quoted it may be something between 400.,00 and 600,000 registered unemployed. Compared with the last published level of 261,000, that is an increase of 300,000. Who are these people to be, the additional 300,000 unemployed? They will be the people who are less able to compete in the labour market. They will be the people forced out of employ-

ment on account of minor disability or advancing years.
I say therefore that the deflationary measures announced as part of the Prime Minister's package a few days ago are going to be discriminatory in character in the labour market against elderly people. The increase in unemployment on that account alone is most largely going to be felt by elderly and retired people. I am sorry that the Chief Secretary does not agree. I repeat that every employer presented with a choice to keep a 45-year-old or a 65-year-old will keep the 45-year-old in a competitive labour market. I am sure I am right about that.
The second factor is the question of the employer weighing in competitive conditions where he can get the best value for his money in the labour market. If he is obliged to pay Selective Employment Tax for elderly people if he keeps them in his employment, the elderly people will go to the wall first. I am not suggesting, as might have been interpreted from my hon. Friend's speech, that there are 7·3 million of these people. There are nothing like that. The retirement pensioners today, whether they draw pensions or not, who are working in manufacturing industry cannot be concerned in any way with this new Clause. The premium is paid in respect of those people. I do not think there would be much discrimination in those industries—for example, in transport—where the tax is repaid without premium.
I am directing my comments only to the service industries where the tax is paid, there is no premium and no repayment. The majority of elderly people today are working in the service industries. That is a fact simply because employment in the service industries is generally less arduous than employment in manufacturing industry or transport. For all these reasons, which I believe are good and valid reasons, I hope that the Treasury will seriously consider the relief pronounced in this new Clause on behalf of retirement pensioners. I liked particularly the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) to the great economic purpose said to be behind the Selective Employment Tax. I grant that there is an economic purpose although it is extremely raggedly and badly applied.
If there is to be any amelioration of the imbalance in the tax as it has been presented to us during the earlier stages of this Bill I suggest that the amelioration should come from an acceptance of the principle that no person of retirement pension age should be subject to Selective Employment Tax if he is continuing to work in the service industries.
I warmly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike), and, if the Treasury Ministers give an unsatisfactory answer, I hope that we shall unite the total strength of the Tory and Liberal Parties in the Division Lobby. I am glad to see a Liberal spokesman about to bob, and I hope that he will support strongly the principles which I have enunciated, because they are not only Tory principles but Liberal ones as well. They are very humane principles, and it is on that basis that I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary.

Sir John Eden: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) emphasised that we are not concerning ourselves with the number of people over retirement age who are employed in manufacturing industry. We are more concerned about those who are employed in the service industries, upon whose employers the full weight of this iniquitous tax will fall.
It is right also to emphasise that probably the majority of the people concerned are women rather than men, and, although that reduces the rate from 25s. to 12s. 6d., it does not in any way alter the principle on which our case is based.
I know from experience in my constituency how important to the economy of a number of industries and services is the labour force provided by women, particularly those working part-time, many of whom are past the age of retirement. The reason for it is that they are working to supplement the retirement incomes of their husbands. Their husbands have ceased active employment and, on retirement, in many cases they have moved from another part of the country. Their wives find it necessary to go out to work to supplement the incomes on which they are living out their years of retirement.
That has become particularly important in the past few years, during which

we have gone through a grievous inflationary experience which has sadly eroded the value of the money which these people have put aside for their old age and which has had the added harmful effect of increasing the costs of the necessities on which they depend.
In my constituency, obviously, there are large numbers of hoteliers and other people, such as chemists, who employ large numbers of elderly people who have reached the age of retirement and find it necessary to take on some form of additional employment.
In our consideration of this Clause we are concerned principally with those people who are likely to experience competition in the labour market. In some areas of employment, employers who dispense with the services of elderly people already working for them will not be able to find anyone else to take their places. In that sense, the further impost of this new tax is not likely to cause an employer to dispense with their services, because he will find it difficult to replace them.
I am trying to be fair in arguing this case because, as I see it, we narrow it down to a comparatively small number of people. Primarily, they are those who have reached retiring age and are working in the services, are most likely women, probably working part-time, and in that form of employment for which there could be competition in the securing of their jobs. To my certain knowledge, that applies to the hotel industry and to that other category of employer to whom I have already referred, the chemists.
On a wider definition, I think that it would also apply in particular to the retail shops. The retail shops employ large numbers of elderly people, and they are likely to try to dispense with those elderly people who work on a part-time basis. This is where this tax is likely to have the most harmful effect. Where an employer now employs two people on a part-time basis, and those two people are elderly women, they are likely to find that, as soon as it is possible to do so, the employer will replace those two with another single younger person. In this sense the tax will have the effect of displacing two people past


retirement age who are working to supplement their personal budgets.
My hon. Friend and others who have spoken on this Clause made a particularly important point in stressing the fact that we are talking of people who do not lend themselves readily—to use a favourite term of the Prime Minister's—to redeployment. They do not lend themselves readily to being transferred or to being encouraged to move to any other area. We are considering people who, because they have reached this particular age, have probably already changed their form of employment or, more important, have almost certainly already moved their home to another place where they wish to live during their remaining years.
They have, therefore, adopted a fairly fixed pattern of life, and that is why, in all our arguments on the effect of inflation on elderly people, we stress the harm done in a social or psychological sense. They cannot readily turn to any other form of living or employment. They do not lend themselves readily to moving to another area.
We should realise that pensionable age is something which is chosen quite arbitrarily. We talk of somebody who has reached the age of 60 or 65 as being old, but that is not necessarily the case, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Svdney Silverman) will be the first to testify. Many years of useful and valuable existence still remain to them.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to me personally. I should like to ask him a question on this point. Of all the legislation in my time that discriminated most harshly against elderly people, I can think of nothing graver than the measures which were taken by the Government whom he supported to impose a charge on prescriptions.
Old people are often in need of medical attention more than young people, and the prescription charges bore in a very harshly discriminatory way precisely against that class of the community for which the hon. Gentleman is now pleading. Will he tell the Committee which way he voted when the Government proposed to restore those allowances?

10.0 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Ronald Russell): It would be out of order for the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) to answer that question.

Sir J. Eden: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman returned what was intended as a bouquet to him with a rather ill-aimed brickbat. He will know that anybody who is on National Assistance falls into a special category.
As to prescription charges, we have always argued that those who are most in need should get such forms of benefit and assistance as the State can provide. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that if the State help were channelled to particular categories, the amount that could be afforded for their benefit would probably be much greater than it is when it is dispersed in the form of the universal largesse distributed by the Labour Government.
I am sure that all hon. Members will recognise that old-age pensioners do not wish any of us to regard them as a special category. They do not want to be treated differently from others. This lends support to the argument that we are putting forward, that people who have reached a certain age should not for that reason be specifically singled out.
So I try to link my argument in support of the Clause with the arguments that we advanced during previous discussions in Committee on the Bill, particularly in regard to the Amendments dealing with part-timers, because I think that if they were to be brought into a category of that kind they would stand to benefit just as much and would certainly feel that they were contributing to our economic strength.
The social reasons that my hon. Friend advanced are extremely important, and it is on these that I shall end my short intervention. As was said, retirement should be a gradual process. It should not be forced on anybody arbitrarily because of the age at which they have arrived. If there are other forms of employment to which, having reached a certain age, they can turn, they should be encouraged to do so. Certainly, the danger as a result of the new tax is a very real one, that where two people are employed on a part-time basis they are likely to be replaced by a single person,


and that argument is likely to be much greater if they are elderly.
Since we are concerning ourselves with a comparatively small number of people—small in practice, although I admit that the arguments can be widened; but I believe that when it comes down to practical terms it is a fairly small number of people—that lends strength to our argument. Since our proposal will not cost much, since it will not depart very greatly from the revenue requirements of the Treasury, and since it will add very substantially to the social benefit of our people, I hope that the Government will be able to accept the Clause.

Mr. Albert Booth: I should like first to congratulate those who drafted the two new Clauses upon the beautifully ironic phrases with which they commence. I refer, of course, to the words
Where any employer who is not a charity".
Many of us before coming to the House of Commons had some experience of trying to wring wage improvements from employers. In discussion among ourselves we referred to those employers in many words which it would not be appropriate to use here. One expression which it might be appropriate to use was that they were tight-fisted, but I cannot recall any occasion when we referred to the employer as a charity.
Hon. Members opposite have sought in support of their cause to make the case that the Bill discriminates against the old. To be specific, they have sought to make the case that it discriminates against men over 65 and women over 60. I would have thought that for a Bill which has within its title the word "Selective", it was remarkably impartial on the subject of age. It treats the man of 35 and one of 65 who are doing the same job in exactly the same way in respect of the tax. It is not selective at all; it is completely impartial. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite cannot, therefore, have it that the Bill discriminates against the old.
In moving the new Clause, the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) suggested, quite fairly in view of the Clause which she was supporting, that what the Government should do was to

tip the balance in favour of men over 65 and women over 60. And yet the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who so bountifully bestows his knowledge upon the Committee, talked about the employer getting the best value for his money. Does the hon. Member want the employer to decide with complete impartiality which employee gives him the best value for money or does he want the balance tipped by the Government using a financial carrot on behalf of the old? One cannot have it both ways.

Sir G. Nabarro: I did not use the words "tip the balance". What I said was that in conditions of severe deflation, to use the Prime Minister's expression—the hon. Member's Prime Minister, not mine—employers would, with competition on the labour market and not over-full employment, as we have suffered from in the last year or two——

Mr. Russell Kerr: You, not "we".

Sir G. Nabarro: No, we have all suffered from it.

Mr. Kerr: Let us be the judge of our position.

Sir G. Nabarro: If the hon. Member would like to get up on his feet, I will answer him. He has not been here all day. He has just walked in.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is making an intervention. It is not in order for him to ask for another.

Sir G. Nabarro: We are in Committee, Sir Ronald. The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) has just walked in. This is his first two minutes in the Committee.

Mr. Kerr: No.

Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, it is.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Although we are in Committee, Sir Ronald, is there anything in our rules that enables two hon. Members to make speeches at the same time?

Sir G. Nabarro: I will continue my intervention, Sir Ronald, as the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has given way to me.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that it will not be too long an intervention.

Sir G. Nabarro: A few minutes, Sir Ronald.
The Prime Minister has announced the severely deflationary package which will create acute competition in the labour market. What I said was, not tipping the scales—I did not use that expression—but that in conditions of competition the employer would take the best labour available for him and that this would rebound painfully against the retirement pensioner.

Mr. Booth: I have listened with great interest and at length to the intervention of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, and I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I did not credit him with having used the phrase, "tip the balance". I credited the hon. Member for Melton with having used it, and I credited the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South with having said that the employer would decide how he would get the best value for money, which is the sense of the phrase he used.
I was putting to him and to the House that one cannot have this both ways. Either an employer will decide that he will get the best value for money on a basis of paying the tax, or one tips the balance of the argument by holding out a financial incentive.

Miss Pike: As the hon. Member said, I used the phrase "tip the balance". I think that the phrase is important because the Bill's title is the Selective Employment Payments Bill, and selectivity means tipping the balance. The balance has been tipped in one respect by the premium provisions, and, if the Bill means anything at all, it should tip the balance in favour of those categories that most need help.

Mr. Booth: The term is a very fair one to use in favour of the Clause. I do not object to its being used in favour of the Clause, but the point is that one cannot argue both ways. One can support the Clause if one believes that the Government should tip the balance in this way, but let us admit that that is precisely what the Clause seeks to do.
In practice, whether a woman over 60 or a man over 65 works depends upon

a number of factors, many of which will be totally unrelated to whether the employer must pay the Selective Employment Tax. I look forward to the day when old people can choose more freely whether they work, when they are not pressed nearly as hard by financial pressures to continue working, as many of them are now. Other things being equal, a person with lower financial commitments, such as somebody with lower rent to pay, is more likely to retire. Other things being equal, somebody with a higher retirement pension will be more likely to retire. Whether or not the employer is paying Selective Employment Tax in respect of them will not alter that issue.
If one accepts that we are moving into a deflationary period when people will be thrown out of work—I shall strongly oppose measures which seek to do that—then the terrible prospect with which we are faced in the House is to determine whether or not we should support a Clause which would throw young people out of work, as opposed to throwing old people out of work.
Who is to say that the hardship imposed on a young man with a young family who is thrown out of work is any greater than that on an old person thrown out of work on to an inadequate State retirement pension? It is not good enough to talk glibly about the young person being able to retrain and move to another part of the country. Those who talk glibly about mobility of labour should try some. They should try shifting a wife and family and home several hundreds of miles to take up another job.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member appreciates that the purpose of the Bill is to influence people to leave a particular kind of service employment, young people as well as old people. It is the purpose of the Bill to influence them to move from service and other employment into productive employment. We do not want that to apply to the elderly.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Booth: Now, apparently—I do not know whether it is in order—we are discussing the purpose of the Bill, which, it is said, is to move people from one type of industry to another. I concede that this is the point of the Bill if we are talking about a long-term trend,


but I do not concede that it is the purpose of the Bill to cause employers to sack young people in order that they should maintain old people in employment. That has never been the Bill's purpose, yet it is the purpose which the Opposition are trying to impose on it by the new Clause.

Miss Pike: The hon. Gentleman is following my argument, but he is taking it into devious paths which would lead none of us anywhere. My point was that the purpose of the Bill is to redeploy labour. If that is not the purpose, we do not know what it is. If one is to redeploy labour, the sort of labour one should redeploy is, presumably, the young unskilled man who is, perhaps, working in an over-populated area like the Midlands where there is over-full employment. He should be encouraged to move to one of the development areas or to one of the new industries. We accept that this means hardship for the young man, but it is a harsh necessity because, if we are to get our industry moving and our economy expanding, we must redeploy labour and we must retrain our young people.

Mr. Booth: My recent experience in talking with service employers has been that they often prefer to employ old people or married women rather than young people, for a variety of reasons totally unconnected with the Selective Employment Tax. I accept that they are the best judges of the people they want to employ. I have some personal experience, on the other hand, of the hardship which people well below retirement age have in shifting home from one part of the country to another in pursuit of their jobs, and I maintain that, if we want to see more old people employed in jobs which are suitable for them, it should be our overall aim to ensure that there is adequate work for everyone. We should not be discussing this question in terms of the suggestion now coming from the Opposition that there should be a financial incentive to sack young people in order to maintain old people in employment.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: It is a pleasure to have some hon. Members opposite intervening in the debate——

Sir G. Nabarro: Only one, not some.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Only one, as my hon. Friend says.
The hon. Gentleman's appearance and intervention in the debate is a fair representation of the attendance we have had on the Government side from a party which claims to consider, above all, the interests of the older citizen. It was a remarkable intervention which we had from the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), and I shall return to it in a few minutes.
I wish, first, to consider the argument advanced from time to time from the Treasury Bench that old-age pensioners will not be harmed by the effects of this tax. It has been said that employers of old-age pensioners employed in manufacturing industries will gain an incentive to retain them; but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Melton said in moving the Clause, the vast majority of old-age pensioners in employment are in the service industries.
Another argument we have had from the Treasury Bench is that the tax is paid by employers and not by employees. Departing from the general arguments which we on this side have put in favour of the Clause, I shall descend from the general to the particular for a moment and give an example from my own constituency which demonstrates very well the fallacy of that argument that the tax is paid by the employer and that there will be no effect on the old-age pensioner employee.
I should say at once that the Chief Secretary knows quite well the case I wish to raise, because I have already been in correspondence with him about it. The reply which I got from him was so ludicrously inadequate that I felt that it would be adding insult to injury to pass it on to my constituents who raised the case with me in the first place.
This is the case of a bowling club in Monifieth, in my constituency. I have already discussed the affairs of this club, which is affected in many ways by the measures we have been discussing this summer; I raised them in a different connection in Committee on the Finance Bill. The club is facing severe consequences as a result of the inclusion of part-time old-age pensioner employees in


this tax. Therefore, the club is particularly concerned with this Clause. I think that it is worth drawing the attention of the Committee to this instance, because I think that it demonstrates very clearly the sort of things which will happen as a result of this tax, unless the Clause so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) is accepted by the Government.
The Monifieth Bowling Club at present employs a 66-year-old pensioner as a part-time greenkeeper for 15 hours a week for a wage of £4 10s., plus insurance stamp. The club calculates that the imposition of the tax in respect of that man will cost the club an additional £65 a year. The club has run at a loss of £200 for the past two years, and the fee for members has already been increased by £1. It is estimated that if the fee were further increased to cover the cost of this tax in respect of the part-time green-keeper the membership would, inevitably, fall of, particularly as about 30 per cent. of the membership are old-age pensioners, many of whom may be affected by the provisions of the Bill. As a result, the club is facing the position that if it has to meet this bill of £65 on its part-time green-keeper through the Selective Employment Tax it will very likely have to close down.
Here, to my mind, is a classic example of the sort of effects that this tax will have. Does the Chief Secretary really intend to tell us that this 66-year-old greenkeeper will be re-employed in manufacturing industry—in the Midlands, manufacturing cars for export? Will he seriously suggest that this pensioner will be "shaken out"—in the elegant phrase used by our admirable Prime Minister to describe the effects of the measures which he has been throwing before the House day in and day out during the past few weeks—that this old-age pensioner will be shaken out into manufacturing industry as a result of this tax? I do not think that even the Chief Secretary would have the nerve to put that sort of explanation before the Committee tonight.
I believe that the application of this tax to old-age pensioners in employment is a piece of economic lunacy of which one can only say that it fits in all too well with the pattern of the measures which have been laid before the House in recent weeks by the Government. We shall, I

suppose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) suggested, be told by the Chief Secretary, when he replies to the debate, that there would be insuperable administrative difficulties in accepting the Clause. Really, sometimes when I hear the replies we get from some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and perhaps most of all from the Chief Secretary, I recall Philip Guedalla's comment on a civil servant whom he described as an inverted Micawber, waiting for something to turn down. That is all the Chief Secretary does, and it will be a depressing performance on a new Clause of this kind.
The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness touched, perhaps unwittingly, on what I fear may be the thinking behind the Government's action on the Amendment. Can it be that they are calculating that, by imposing the tax on old-age pensioners, they will be able to achieve a certain amount of this famous shake-out which the Prime Minister has been talking about in terms of old-age pensioners, who will not show up in the unemployment statistics? Can it be that this is the cynical intent behind the imposition of the tax on old-age pensioners?
If this is the thinking which might lead the Chief Secretary to reject the Amendment, which was so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton, it will be treated by old-age pensioners with the contempt it deserves. I therefore hope that, contrary to all my expectations, the Chief Secretary will accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Pardoe: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I say that the House is not only in Committee, but is also "Through the Looking Glass". Many of us who followed debates on this type of subject before we entered the House of Commons and before the 1964 election have read the massive attacks which the Labour Party when in opposition made on the Conservative Government on just this kind of subject. We have read the tear-away speeches made by Labour Members about the earnings rule.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said that he has been advocating the abolition of the earnings rule consistently over a long period. I can justifiably remind him that I am speaking for a party which, alone


of the parties represented in the House of Commons, has consistently opposed the earnings rule.

Sir G. Nabarro: Do not be silly. I taught the Liberal Party how to do it.

Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), in some strange arguments, said, first, that the tax does not discriminate against the old. It does, because old people tend to have low incomes. This is one of the effects of the earnings rule. Old people tend to have low incomes partly because of the earnings rule and partly because they are often part-time workers. The tax discriminates against low income earners. Any poll tax does that, because it is a higher proportion of a low income than it is of a high income. The first thing to be said therefore is that the tax discriminates against the elderly.
Secondly, even if this were not true, the new Clause, which I support, would help to right the balance. I agree that the balance should be tipped, but in this instance it would only right the balance against the weight of the earnings rule as it exists today. There is already a disincentive to elderly people to work, because of the earnings rule. If the new Clause were accepted, I would hope that the balance would in some sense be righted.
I do not support the new Clause in the spirit of the puritan ethos that work is good for work's sake and that everybody should go on working for the whole of their lives. I have some vision of a society in which people will want to retire and genuinely want to give up work. I am a member of a generation—not all Members of the House of Commons are—who have had two years' experience of retirement already. I speak of National Service. During that time I made up my mind to dedicate the rest of my life to preparing for the next period of retirement. I hasten to add that this is not the reason why I entered the House.
I would not like to follow the hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike), who moved the Amendment so passionately, in asserting that all social legislation introduced by the Conservatives had these problems in mind.
The earnings rule forces down the incomes of elderly people, and the Gov-

ernment come along and deliver the coup de grace with this tax which will have savage effect on elderly people.
10.30 p.m.
The whole of this debate has been about the national problem, but I want to refer briefly to the particular problem of development areas, in particular areas such as Cornwall and the deep South-West, where we have a situation such as that referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Melton. A very high proportion of our population is in the retirement age group. This tax will savagely affect the whole economic base of Cornwall and of other development areas like it. We have a very low activity rate because of this age structure.
I must warn the Government—they seem to take this very lightly—that the economic measures which have recently been announced will have a terrible result in the development areas. I know that the Government do not really believe this. They think that the measures announced over the last two years to help the development areas will solve this problem, but they will not. Unemployment will start to rise in the development areas first. It will rise faster there than elsewhere in the country, and there will be considerable distress in the development areas within a very short time. I support the Clause because I believe that it will help the development areas. The Government have so far refused to help these areas, but I hope that they will do so now by accepting this new Clause.
I want, now, to deal with the arguments about administrative problems. Many of the arguments which have been put forward tonight were put forward when, at an earlier stage, I proposed an Amendment to deal with the problem of part-time employees. The Government, in the person of the Financial Secretary, then put forward the argument that it was impossible to select the part-time employees because one could not prove who they were. The hon. and learned Gentleman had a point there if one sticks to the letter of the law, but this argument cannot be made in respect of pensioners, because if it is possible, as it says in Clause 1, to select a different rate of tax for persons under 18, it is also possible to select a different rate of tax for persons over 60, or over 65, because they have


pension books and these are the ultimate proof that they are in those age groups. An employer would only have to produce an employee's pension book to prove to the Inland Revenue that he was entitled to this rebate.
I hope that the Government will not fall back on the argument about the administrative problem, and that they will accept that this is a sound principle. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South

said that this was not only a Tory principle but that it was a Liberal principle. He did not go quite as far as I think he should have gone. It is not only a Liberal principle, not only a Tory principle, but it is a Socialist principle. It is all very well for a party to continue to ride roughshod over the principles of the Opposition, but when the Government rides roughshod over their principles, they are in danger of losing their soul.

Miss J. M. Quennell: My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) quoted an example of the operation of this tax when it becomes effective, but I believe that nearly every one of my hon. Friends could produce a similar case to demonstrate the folly of this proposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) found an economic logic in the conception of the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) an economic purpose. Their detective instincts are better than mine. The Committee is faced with a dilemma. When the Bill was introduced to a somewhat stunned and startled country it was argued in its support that we were in a condition of acute and severe over-employment and needed a redeployment of our labour resources, and the argument for economic logic and the economic purpose of the Bill was to secure this.
Since then we have had announcements from the Prime Minister, and deflationary measures which have altered the situation markedly, certainly for those over 65 years of age, who will find the Bill implemented in a way completely different from that suggested when it was introduced. It would be more encouraging if we could see the Government pursuing their own logic a little more effectively, but it was said in another place last week that the Government's office accommodation increased by 1 million square ft. last year and also that the State's intake of labour last year exceeded the total increase in the national labour force.
The redeployment of labour is an ugly phrase, but the State, in one way or another, through its agencies, employs between 20 and 25 per cent. of the total labour force of the country, and it is, therefore, the State, through its various agencies, which can effect a cure of our present dilemma much more quickly than any other single employer. If the Cabinet were to instruct all the agencies of the State to reduce their labour force by about 5 per cent. our dilemma would be a very different one.
The labour shortage in the South of England is acute. If one wants a tile for a roof, or a pane of glass replaced, one is

extremely lucky to get it done without a long wait. Old-age pensioners are an essential part of the labour force in my constituency and others in the South-East and South of England, both as full-time and part-time employees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) said, they need the cash, thanks to the rising cost of living.
In my constituency, and constituencies adjacent to mine, employers will often employ two part-time workers in place of one full-time worker, but pensioners are facing a period in which the Government—and this must be the first Government ever to do so—are planning for unemployment, planning deliberately for deflation, and a reduction in the level of prosperity and the economic activity of the country, and planning for the curtailment of affluence. In those circumstances, this group within our community is far more vulnerable, as employees, than any other single group, as my hon. Friend the member for Worcester, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has demonstrated. As he made quite clear, physically they cannot work either so hard, or for so many hours, as younger employees. This partly contributes to their vulnerability as employees, but, nationally, it is in the interest of the nation that they should remain actively and usefully employed.
The traumatic effects of the early retirement of elderly people have been mentioned. One of the most horrid experiences I have had was to tell an old friend that he should not retire because it would be bound to be fatal. He did retire, and died within a year. Once elderly people retire they tend to become dependent and feel unwanted. The consequences are often irrepairable and they begin to make demands on the social services which they previously did not have to make.
Although it may have been argued that the Bill made a useful contribution to the redeployment of labour, that initial argument was put forward when the Bill was introduced, and not at a time when the economy is in a state of deep freeze. My fear is that the retirement pensioners will be the first to be frozen out.
I hope that the Government will meet the arguments adduced for the new


Clause by my hon. Friends. If the will exists, there would be no administrative problems in getting the new Clause in operation easily. However, if the Government are not willing to go the whole way, they could administer the new Clause on a regional basis. The population structure of one area differs markedly from that of another. While the Government may be planning to put the whole country into deep freeze, I trust that they will not give old-age pensioners the "frozen mitt" tonight.

Sir D. Glover: When this tax was first introduced by the Chancellor I thought it irrelevant, badly thought out and that it would not achieve the objectives set for it by the right hon. Gentleman. At least, when it was introduced the Government were operating in a period of over-full employment, with only 250,000 people unemployed. Even then we thought the Government were going too far and many of my hon. Friends saw how the economy was developing. However, today we must consider S.E.T. in the light of the Prime Minister's statement of 20th July and the fact that he talked about shaking people out of work, rather like shaking peas through a colander. The people who fall through the holes will be the most defenceless of all, because, having been shaken out, they will be out of work.
When the tax was introduced the Government made it clear that they wanted a shake-up in employment. To put it simply, they wanted people to move from less worth-while to more productive occupations. But that was at a time of full employment. Now the Prime Minister has admitted—he said this when replying to a Question of mine—that he expects about 500,000 people to be unemployed as a result of these measures.
I believe that the economy was turning down before the Government took any action at all, and I pray to God that we do not have 1 million unemployed by this time next year—though I have very great fears that that is the situation that the country is facing. If that be the case, I should like, with a lifetime of experience in distribution, to say a few things to the Government about what will happen.
10.45 p.m.
Hope springs eternal—and, I hope, always will—in man's breast. Because of the deflation the Government have brought in, Mr. A. loses his job. A service industry is employing two part-time people, both of them over retirement age. Mr. A. is a full-time person now looking for a job. The firm employing those two people-over 60 or over 65 depending on whether they are men or women—will be only too delighted, in a period of deflation, when finding it more and more difficult to keep up turnover and maintain profits, to reduce its oncost by taking on Mr. A and discharging the two older people. It will thereby save 25s. in the case of a male employee and 12s. 6d. in the case of a woman, so keeping its oncost lower——

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What would be wrong with that?

Sir D. Glover: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. It entirely contradicts the Government's original object under the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman, from his sedentary position, will allow me to make my argument, I will explain why I say that.
The whole purpose of the tax was to cause a shake-out, and thereby get people who were probably semi-trained to go on retraining courses for more worthwhile occupations in the growth industries and the exporting industries, and in the development areas. What will happen now, unless this Clause is accepted? The older people, who are probably working part time, will get the sack, and their employers will take on one semi-trained person who has got the sack from some other occupation. So, instead of younger persons going for retraining, we will find when we want to expand our economy again that we have no more trained manpower than we have at present.
If the Government want their policy to work, they should at present be scrapping the 7s. 6d. bonus for all the people in manufacturing, and providing a bonus for the whole of our economy to maintain the maximum number of old people in their present occupations so that, if there is any shake-out, the younger ones can be retrained—because the old ones


will not be retrained. We will not retrain a lady of 60 or a man of 65 in a new computerised industry——

Mr. Michael McGuire: They should have a proper pension. They should not need to be working.

Sir D. Glover: I am dealing with Government policy.
If the Government want their policy to work the only sensible and logical way to go about it is to encourage, in a period of deflation, those beyond the point of retraining to be kept on in their occupations even to the disadvantage of the young, because the young can then, under the Government's retraining proposals, be retrained for the more constructive industries we want to build up in order to make our economy grow and become more efficient. If the Government do not accept this Clause, they are contradicting their own policy and making it quite certain that it cannot possibly work in a period of deflation.
As I said earlier, hope springs eternal. When a man loses his job he thinks that he will get it back again and be where he was before in two or three months' time. He will take a slightly inferior job meantime, if he can get it, but he will not go for retraining unless he feels that he will not otherwise get another job.
There is a great deal of support on both sides of the House for the idea of training people for new industries, but if they do not accept this Clause the Government will be making almost certain that their policy will fail.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I am very glad to speak on this subject on new Clause 17 at this time rather than at 2.11 in the morning, as I did last time. I am also glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) for this Clause, which affects men who have not a pension. An hon. Member opposite said that they should have a decent pension, but they do not have a pension at the age of 60.
As the Chief Secretary knows, many of these people are employed for only 10 hours a week. They earn £2 10s. a week and on that their employers will have to pay 25s. a week. There will not

be very much incentive for employers to keep these people on at a time when costs are getting very competitive and there is deflation in the economy. I should like to underline the principles of this Clause, because by it we want to give an opportunity to men of 60 and over who do not get a pension until they are 65 to try to help themselves.
In my part of the country many of these people are employed in hotels and shops as part-time workers. There 25 per cent. of the population consists of old-age pensioners. I know what a severe influence this tax will have on them. I have twice pleaded with the Chief Secretary on this matter. He refused to answer just before the deflationary measures were introduced, and treated me with disdain, but, because I know that he is a reasonable man, I ask him to think seriously about the case I am putting.
I am sure that if he reasons correctly he will see that the whole basis of the tax has been altered since the new measures were introduced. I cannot see that the Government can have the same case now. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider carefully and to give pungent reasons why we should have to go ahead with this tax which falls on people earning only £2 10s. a week, 5s. an hour for 10 hours a week, and the employer has to pay 25s. a week. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can make a concession on that.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the deflationary measures will mean a large amount of unemployment. I am sure that it is not his intention to cause unemployment and hardship to people who want to help themselves. I do not believe that those on the Treasury Bench are hard-hearted. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said, it is a Liberal principle, it is a Conservative principle, and up to now it has been a Socialist principle, that people who want to help themselves should help themselves. I have never known such a hard-hearted Measure as this. I hope that the Government will use common sense and alter the hardship that they are causing to old-age pensioners.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): It is always preferable to start on common ground, as


far as one can. May I say that the Government share the views which have been expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) and other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, that those who wish to be active for longer than the normal span of working life should be free to do so.
I am reminded that in various primitive societies there is one word only for work and for play, which one translates as activity, and there is a lot to be said for that. I enjoy my work, and I am sure that most hon. Members do. It is very hard to distinguish between what is work and what is play. Those of us who garden for play will find it difficult to say why we call gardening play and why a full-time gardener calls it work.
I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Lady said, that the possibility of working is something which, subject to examination, we want to encourage. It is something which is satisfying on human and social grounds and, on economic grounds, it is something which is beneficial to the community as a whole. We are on common ground there, at all events.
I move from that, and consider the effect of this tax. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not go into some detail in answering her general thesis about the worth-whileness of having work for old people. No one disputes that at all. What we are considering and what the hon. Lady devoted a tiny part of her speech to considering is the effect of the tax on the employment of older people.
If I may say so, I was interested most in the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), who tried to put it, as he said, in fair terms and tried to grapple with the size of the problem that we are discussing. He said that he wanted to narrow it down to a comparatively small number, and I think that that is right. We are dealing with a comparatively small number.
The hon. Gentleman described the persons whom he thought might be affected by the tax in present circumstances. However, the first thing about which I must remind the Committee is that, of all the men over 65 and all the women over 60 who are working more than eight hours a week, half the

women and more than half the men are in employment which attracts either the premium or the refund. Therefore, those hon. Members who have spoken to the contrary have not been fully informed of the facts.
This is a major principle. If it is right to say that the tax has a deterrent effect on the employment of older people in services, it is also right to say that it has an effect in the opposite direction on the employment of people in premium receiving activities. It does not have that effect to the same extent, but it has an effect. That must be so. If the argument is that the imposition of a tax has an effect on an employer's decision whether to employ a particular person, it must be the case that a premium has an opposite effect.

Miss Pike: Surely that is wrong. In a premium-attracting industry, all employees are on the same basis, whether they are of retirement age or under. The premium is repayable. What we are asking for is that the balance should be tipped slightly the other way, and that older people in the service industries should be put at a slight advantage, so that, when a decision comes to be made, an employer will weigh that in the balance.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Lady said nothing against what I am saying. The essence of the matter is whether the employer is likely to discontinue employment of a man over 65 or a woman over 60 because he has to pay an additional 25s. or 12s. 6d., as the case may be; and I am just demonstrating that if it is alleged that the employer is less likely to continue employing such a person because of the tax, it must be true—proportionately but not to the same absolute extent—that the receipt of a premium of 7s. 6d. is an encouragement to continue.
Several hon. Members will not accept that argument. I do not think there is a great deal in it either way. I share the view of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West that we are probably dealing with a very small number of people where the addition of the 12s. 6d.—because it will be mainly 12s. 6d.; we know that—will be such as to make the employer say, "I am no longer going


to employ this employee." I do not think that is likely to happen to any considerable extent at all.

Mr. Ridsdale: Would not the Chief Secretary agree that, where the wage is £2 10s., the 25s. tax on a man will have a very considerable effect on the employer?

Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Gentleman wants to do so, let us consider the part-time employee. At the moment, we are not considering the part-time employee; we are considering the elderly employee. There are elderly employees who are also part time, but the essence of the argument is the elderly employee. If we were discussing the part-time employee—which we are not—I would seek to deploy a number of arguments relating to part-time employees. What we are considering is the elderly employee and the likelihood of the elderly employee being the most vulnerable in circumstances in which employment is likely to fall somewhat, and, therefore, somebody who should be specially protected. That is the argument.
The first thing I say, therefore, is that having regard to the incentive effect of the tax in part, having regard to the fact that more than half the employed men over 65 are in the incentive area of the tax, I do not think that this tax will have a substantial effect.
The next point I want to make——

Mr. Gower: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I take his point that if there is a disincentive effect with regard to the tax there may be a slight contrary effect with regard to the premium. But is he not basing his argument on the fallacy that the service and productive industries occur in equal amount in all parts of the country? Of course, this is not the case. The very parts of the country which will suffer most harshly from elderly people being put out of service industries are those parts which have relatively few premium-earning industries.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman is on a completely false point. We are not dealing with regional policy. We are dealing with a situation where, according to most hon. Members opposite who have spoken, we have over-full

employment—not full employment, but over-full employment.
We have suffered, said the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), from over-full employment. The hon. Lady the Member for Melton said the labour shortage in the South is acute. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said that employment is over-full. The present situation that we are dealing with is one in which there is full or very full employment, and one is considering, therefore, people who are in employment at present and the likelihood of them continuing to be employed.
The whole case put forward by the hon. Lady the Member for Melton was that we must have a special incentive for the old so that they would not be competing equally with other possible employees for the jobs which are going.

Mr. Pardoe: I said nothing about "over-full employment". I have just read my speech and there are no such words in it.

Mr. Diamond: I am sorry if I had it down to the hon. Member. It must have been another hon. Member, but I thought that it was the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. There were at least three hon. Members whose speeches I have quoted who said it and everyone has been saying the same thing. Many right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite have said it time and again when referring to the number of vacancies in relation to the number of applicants.
The second point hardly needs mentioning, but I had better remind hon. Members about it. We are talking about a tax on employers as opposed to a tax on employees.
The third point to which I would like to draw attention is one concerning humane grounds and is one to which the hon. Lady the Member for Melton asked me to pay attention. There are two aspects here to which we should give full attention. It is not true that there is a wide variety of jobs which an older person cannot do quite as well as the younger person can. There is a whole variety of sedentary jobs that the older person can do and sometimes they are thought by the employer to be able


to do them better than the younger person can. We do not want to accept the point of view that the older person has to be discouraged as an employee, quite the reverse.

Miss Pike: There will not be a wide variety of jobs in the future.

Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Lady will allow me to get that far I will deal with that point, too. I have had seven interventions so far.

Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman is saying silly things.

Mr. Diamond: I am saying a lot of things which are perhaps not acceptable to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).

Dame Irene Ward: I was wondering when the right hon. Gentleman would tell us the object of the Selective Employment Tax. In the terms of the Government's own statement, it is to shake out people. We are asking him not to shake out old people because they will not be able to get in anywhere else. Could he deal with that point, because I am sick of all the others.

Mr. Diamond: I will deal with it immediately. As usual, the hon. Lady is completely and utterly wrong in saying that the Government have ever alleged that the purpose of the Bill is to shake out old employees.

Dame Irene Ward: Redeployment.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Lady is quite inaccurate. I hope that if she disagrees with me she will draw my attention to statements in the OFFICIAL REPORT where any Member, on behalf of the Government, has said that the purpose of the Selective Employment Tax is to shake out elderly employees. If she has not got the reference handy, perhaps she will accept my word for it.

Dame Irene Ward: Perhaps I will be called after the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Diamond: There is plenty of time.
The next point is on the humane approach. It is not the case that all those, particularly ladies, who are 60 or more wish to disclose their age. They

are perfectly happily employed at the moment and if they were to disclose their age there is likely to be discrimination against them, or there is the possibility of it. Their age is not shown on their insurance cards. It is not the case that one would want to do that unless there were compelling reasons, which there are not.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North was also mistaken in thinking that one could deal with this on administrative grounds by having regard to the pension book. Pension books do not exist where the employee continues in employment over the age of 60 or 65, as the case may be. It applies only to the retired pensioner. There is not a separate category which corresponds with this Amendment which one could deal with in that way. I repeat that we do not expect that there will be any number of elderly people who will be likely to be thrown out of work.

Mr. Pardoe: They must surely be in any case. Otherwise, the earnings rule would not exist. It applies to people who are earning some money and who have a pension.

Mr. Diamond: I repeat that the person who carries on in employment does not have a pension book. The person who retires and then comes back to work is a retired pensioner and is then in work with a book and is then subject to all the rules about limitation. A vast number carry on at work without any question of a book, or disclosing their age. This is very relevant indeed. There is no need to disturb that situation. In short, one is dealing with a very small section, one where the effect of the tax is likely to be minimal.
If it is said that the situation now is somewhat different from what it was when the tax was introduced, that is true, but let us examine the extent of the difference. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South quoted some alarming figures. He mentioned 600,000 unemployed, but I suppose that he did not mean to say 600,000.

Sir G. Nabarro: What I said was that, arithmetically applied, the Prime Minister's figure of 1½ to 2 per cent. might result in unemployment between 400,000 and 600,000.

Mr. Diamond: That is just what I said. There was hardly need to interrupt me for that.

Sir G. Nabarro: Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman referred to a figure of 600,000, which is quite wrong. If it were 2 per cent. the upper limit would be 480,000, and at 1½ per cent. the lower limit would be 360,000. If one quotes what the Prime Minister said, we are talking about a figure between 360,000 and 480,000. At 1½ per cent., it would be a figure less than that which held when there was a change of Government in 1964. If it were between 1½ and 2 per cent. it would be somewhat less than the average figure which obtained during the whole of the 13 years of office of the Tory Government. If one examines the figures, there is no need to use the startling phrases on which hon. Members have based their approach to the Clause.
We do not dispute that there will be a lessening in the number of employed in the way that the Prime Minister has indicated. But that is certainly very different from saying the things that hon. Gentlemen have said. It is certainly not expected that it will have a substantial effect on the numbers employed of those about whom we are talking.
There has been reference to part-timers, too. They have been referred to on the basis that one has to have two part-timers to do the work of one whole-timer. That is not the case. In many instances in the distributive trade one has a part timer because one can carry only a part timer. One has a part-timer because one has peak requirements in labour, and that situation can be met only by employing the services of somebody who is willing to give part-time service and unwilling to give full-time service, and one would not solve the problem by having full-time service because it is a peak problem that one has to satisfy very largely in the distributive trade. So it is not quite as simple as people have thought it to be. I do not think that there is any need, therefore, to look to a Clause of this kind, which would go far wider than has been suggested in many of the speeches.
If I may refer to the cost, I can say mat that would be about £20 million a

year, which is a substantial part of any ordinary year's revenue.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Prescription charges.

Mr. Diamond: We are not discussing prescription charges. If that is the best that the hon. Member can do, then he has not a particularly strong argument for this Amendment.
I have already referred to the administrative difficulties, but the Committee does not seem to want to hear about those. But there are administrative difficulties. There is the question of the disclosure, to which reference has already been made, and the major difficulty that once one starts bringing in elderly people in the services then the Ministry of Labour would have to set up a major administrative machine to deal with those services now outside their ken. I might add that such services ought not to be brought within their ken.
No person inside, with the exception of the charities, is to have a refund. If we bring in the elderly and, as a result, have something which approaches more than 800,000 persons working full time—that is women over 60, and men over 65—then we shall have to deal with the whole of the service employees to satisfy ourselves that there were no abuses committed, and so on. An extraordinarily large number of civil servants would have to be recruited to deal with them all.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I thought that the whole burden of the Government's case was that few people were concerned. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that there would be more than 800,000. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Member does not want to listen to what I have been saying he should at least have listened to what his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) had to say.
The Amendment proposes that we should distribute £20 million to 800,000 or more people because of the possibility that a very small number of elderly persons might become unemployed, a very small number indeed. That is the point which I am trying to make. It


is not only a question of categories of people employed; there are other factors as well, and I cannot recommend this Amendment to the Committee.
However, having said that, I would like briefly to look at what is the main basis on which the Opposition have proceeded; not on what they previously said, but on their later anxiety which appears to stem from what the Prime Minister has said. To the extent that what my right hon. Friend has said may make the situation less satisfactory than it previously was, I promise that we shall keep the matter under close review. If it is necessary we shall bring forward suggestions, but we do not think that there is a solid case for dealing with this vast number of persons; for tipping the balance. Indeed, that case has not been made out at all.
Of course, we agree that there is a good case for employing as many people as possible in the course of adjusting jobs, so far as that can be done, but at the same time, there is no case for selecting any specific old person and saying that he shall get a job so that a young person may lose his.
In the circumstances, the best I can offer is the promise I have already made that we shall keep this matter under review and under even closer review in view of the Prime Minister's statement. I cannot recommend this Amendment, because I think that it is unnecessary.

Dame Irene Ward: I am glad that the Chief Secretary has tempted me to intervene, because I had listened to all the various arguments and I decided to record my vote and not to take up the time of the Committee. I want, however, to make clear what my intervention was, because I try, even though the Chief Secretary does not think that I do, to be absolutely accurate in what I say.
I understood from the beginning that the whole case for the Selective Employment Tax was based upon the fact that the service industries did not pay their share of taxation and that redeployment in the service industries was very much required by the Government. Am I right as far as I have gone?

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Lady is not right. The Government have made it clear time and time again that they do

not expect a large redeployment in terms of transfer of labour to arise from the Bill. They have said time and time again—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I both said this in the opening speeches in the Budget debate in dealing with the introduction of the tax—that what we hoped would happen would be that recruitment would benefit from this and that new recruits into industry would tend to come the more into manufacturing and less into services as a result of this tax.

Dame Irene Ward: This is a new position. I have listened very carefully and although, as the right hon. Member has generously pointed out, I am not surrounded by copies of HANSARD, or by civil servants, the point remains that during the earlier stages of the Bill there was a great deal of talk about trying to attract people from the service industries into manufacturing industry.
It is difficult sometimes on these matters to be quite certain what somebody said or did not say, but I fully accept that the right hon. Gentleman, or all those other Ministers who have spoken during our debates, might have meant to say that they hoped that that would be the effect with new recruitment, the people who will be 60 or 65 or whatever it may be but who have not got there yet—and it may be some time before they get there. The point was, however, made that there would, it was hoped, be an encouragement by the S.E.T. for people to transfer—I do not say that it was the elderly—from the service industries to manufacturing industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), who made a wonderful speech from the point of view of the Chief Secretary, also made the case for Bournemouth, but his constituency is not the only place which has hotels or shops. The case that my right hon. and hon. Friends have tried to make throughout the whole of these debates is that in certain parts of the country, which include Bournemouth and parts of my constituency, in the areas where most people are employed in service industry there is not the manufacturing industry to which they can transfer. The Chief Secretary has never sought to answer that case. That is what I have been waiting for, from the beginning of this wretched debate to


the end. Now, when the right hon. Gentleman has generously invited me to intervene, all he says is that I am absolutely wrong.
I can give a specific case—again, I do not have HANSARD with me—on the right hon. Gentleman's argument that people do not employ two part-timers because they can do very well with one part-timer. Of course, some firms can. Every firm, hotel or boarding-house deals with cases according to how it suits it best. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he likes to make a date with me I will take him along to a big store in London where there are two cleaners, one coming in at 7 o'clock in the morning and one coming in at 1 o'clock, who have already been told that the shop will require one full-timer. As it happens, neither of the two can fit in her times to suit the store. So I think that I would be right in deducing that both those part-time women will depart.
Another point I really must take up with the right hon. Gentleman is the sudden decision about age. I really do not know what he knows about women; I really would not quite know that; but the point is that, under National Insurance, age has to be declared, because when one applies for one's retirement pension one has, if one is a woman, to declare one's age, 60, and if one is man, one has to declare one's age, 65. That is absolutely true. Another point is that if one wants to continue earning and draw pension at the same time, one must declare one's age to get one's book and go on, even if one keeps within the earnings rule.
So what the right hon. Gentleman was saying about age was absolute nonsense—although there are, of course, some people, grand people, both men and women, but, I think, mostly women, who, naturally, do not want to declare their age; but that is an infinitesimal number of people the hon. Gentleman discusses so frequently in the arguments he tries to put forward to shake our Amendments. The point is that with life as it is now people have got over the bother about declaring their ages; they have got quite used to it, because they have to declare age for so many things. I think that was a very silly

line that the right hon. Gentleman took, if I may say so.
What I really want an answer to is this suggestion that one should transfer from service industry into manufacturing industry. I want again to follow the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West. The right hon. Gentleman has said, quite rightly, that this is a tax which will be paid by the employer. He is thinking just in terms of I.C.I. I am thinking in terms of small boarding-house keepers, or small hotel keepers, or small shopkeepers.
Quite a lot of them are elderly women, and they like to employ part timers so that they can get a little relaxation from the long hours they have to work. Indeed, I would like to pay a tribute to the shopkeepers, for I do think there is no section of the community which works longer hours. I am not talking about the Harrods or the Harveys or the Woollands or the C and A's; I am talking about the small shopkeepers, who are the salt of the earth and who work from early morning to late at night—and do not make much profit, either. The Government are imposing a tax on them.
So there are different types of employers, in exactly the same way as there are different ages, in the service industries. The right hon. Gentleman really made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to distinguish between them, or to say what will happen in the areas where there are mostly old people in the service industries, employed in small hotels, small boarding-houses, small shops, and who cannot get other employment.
One difficulty after another is piled on the small shopkeepers, the small boarding-house keepers, the small hotel keepers, and they cannot afford to pay this additional tax. People will be forced out of employment not out of malice, because nobody wants to get rid of the best servants, but because of this tax. It is among the elderly that we find the best type of men and women, because they respond to the need to maintain their independence, and try not to be a burden on the State.
11.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) intervened to make a comment about prescription


charges. As he was allowed to make that intervention, perhaps I might be allowed to reply to it. The hon. Gentleman did not get his facts right, because these old people who are on National Assistance never did have to pay prescription charges, and if I had had my way many other people on the small income limit would not have paid them, either, so that is tit for tat. When someone as experienced as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne does not know his facts, I am only too delighted to "have a go".
It is not a question of turning out the young at the expense of the old. I invite the Government to come to my part of the country. We would be delighted to give them a good time at Whitley Bay. Elderly people tend to be in the service industries, and the whole argument is about the fact that the Government have decided to make this dividing line between manufacturing and service industries. It was a most unfortunate decision, and I am sure that it was "coughed up" by Mr. Kaldor.
It is an artificial division, and the right hon. Gentleman keeps on talking about there being only a small percentage of people who will be affected, and about there being so many hundreds of people over 60 and 65 who are employed in manufacturing industry. Believing in democracy as I do, I do not think that one section of the community should be castigated because statistically they do not fit into the other group. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is a very false one indeed.
I get tired of the right hon. Gentleman's smarmy opening every time he replies to the debate on a proposed new Clause or Amendment. He always says that it comes from the heart, and if only the heart could operate against the head he would come down on the side of the heart. By that time his heart has beaten so fast it has nearly choked him. He then thinks that he uses his head.
I think that we have made a very good case for the Clause. The Government have created their own difficulties, against which they are trying to struggle, by making this idiotic division between manufacturing and service industries. If I last long enough—I do not know whether Members are in a service in-

dustry —I shall look forward to the day when I can remember what I said today, and what the right hon. Gentleman said.
I have had to fight hard in my part of the country. Whenever I want to speak, the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) comes in and makes a speech, which, of course, is very flattering. I remember the election campaign in 1964, and Tynemouth would be very surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman, after the methods of electioneering that he employed then.
I will not argue against the hon. Gentleman, but he is the sole person—I put that down to the appearance of myself—who likes challenging me, because I defeated him. He has talked a great deal about employment, and what he wanted and did not want. Nobody wants unemployment. But the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, which produces the Polaris submarines, is not particularly suited to represent that area when he is a member of C.N.D.

Mr. Booth: Would the hon. Lady not consider that the electors of Barrow-in-Furness to whom she referred would be in a very much better position to decide whether they should have a member of the C.N.D. as a representative precisely because the Polaris submarines are built by them?

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Member has a right to his own opinion—and I congratulate him on having convinced Barrow-in-Furness that they should elect him—but his argument about unemployment and employment is not so effective as it would be if he had defeated me in Tynemouth. I have been challenged by the hon. Member and I have tried to give my reply. I am looking forward to going into the Lobby against him and his Government.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: My hon. Friend the Member for Padding-ton, South (Mr. Scott) was lamentably prophetic in saying that we would not get anything out of the Chief Secretary. In all these debates on this type of Amendment he has done nothing more than give an imitation of Bowman, in the Hunting of the Snark, saying,
What I tell you three times must be true.


The deviousness and irrelevancy of this reply illustrates the illogicality and what my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) called the "economic lunacy" of the whole tax.
It was that complication and illogicality that made the tax a payroll tax and an attempt at the same time to broaden the base of indirect taxation and achieve a reduction in labour in the service industries by means of transferring it to the manufacturing industry. It is no good the right hon. Gentlemen saying that this was intended from the beginning only to ensure that recruits to industry favoured the manufacturing side rather than the services side, because the White Paper says clearly, in paragraph 4, that the intention is to move people from service industries to manufacturing industry. It says,
Second, it"—
that is, the Selective Employment Tax—
will have a beneficial longer-term effect by encouraging economy in the use of labour in the services and thereby making more labour available for the expansion of manufacturing industry.
Unless the White Paper is using English in a way never foreseen by Roget, "economy in the use of labour", and "thereby making more labour available", means a transfer of existing labour and not merely a change in the emphasis of recruiting labour.
In the course of this debate, the only intervention from the other side was that of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who reminded us that, whatever difficulties we may be having, he had experienced very great difficulty in getting more wages out of employers. That may well have been his experience, but the employers that he would be dealing with now have an excuse that the former employers never had; now they can say that they cannot pay extra wages because the Government would fine them if they did so.
The Chief Secretary argued that because half the women and more than half the men of the 800,000 affected by the Amendment were already in manufacturing industry we could not but argue, through the logic of our own argument, that the premium encouraged older people to be employed in manufacturing industry.

Mr. Diamond: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to put the argument against himself any higher than I put it. The 400,000 are not in the premium earning category but in the premium earning and refund categories.

Mr. Macmillan: As the right hon. Gentleman's argument was totally ridiculous anyway, I do not think that I could put my argument in a strong enough way to refute it, because it is patently obvious that, at a time when manpower generally is being encouraged to go into manufacturing and when the choice is between the elderly and the young, the natural choice is for the young. I do not wish to exaggerate the extent of possible unemployment, but what I say is bound to be the case in a state of increasing unemployment; although I agree with the Chief Secretary that while the Government intend that the amount of unemployment should be small, the result of their policies is likely to be a totally different matter.
When talking about the number of people employed in the service industries, particularly by small employers, the Government must remember that marginal costs such as S.E.T. are bound to be important to the labour expenses of firms. Many elderly people employed in larger manufacturing industries are doing various semi-service jobs within those larger establishments. Such firms have a large proportion of employees who qualify for repayment or neutrality. Many of the elderly workers in these establishments are retired servants of these companies, perhaps doing less active tasks than they did in their younger years.
The arguments of the Chief Secretary represented a sort of elegant paradox, more suitable to a Fabian drawing room than the House of Commons, particularly when speaking about the hardships that could be caused by rejecting our proposal. At one point the right hon. Gentleman was putting forward the classical defence of the Victorian maidservant when charged by her employer; of the girl, on showing the baby, saying, "It's only a little one". It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that only a few people will be affected—and then only the old.
The Chief Secretary's administrative argument does not stand examination. He


said that one reason for the Government not giving way was that it would force people to disclose their ages while, at the same time, he adduced the usual argument that it would be too difficult for the Government to right a wrong which they had created because too many people would be involved owing to the complexity of their administrative system. To say that the Government cannot give this small and admittedly marginal assistance to the employment of the elderly because it would discriminate in their favour is an odd argument coming from the benches opposite. Of course, we are asking for a mild discrimination in favour of the elderly. Life itself discriminates against them. As they get older, so their problems are bound to become greater. The value of their pension gradually becomes less.
One hon. Gentleman opposite suggested that the better solution would be for the pension to increase as people get older. I am inclined to agree. My hon. Friends are not arguing that people should be forced to stay at work after retirement age when they do not wish to, but are obliged to do so for financial reasons. Nor are we arguing about the forced retirement of people when they wish to stay at work. But, alas, in present conditions, more and more people will find that, because of the harsh conditions created by this Government, they will need to stay at work.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) pointed out, the value of the pension is consistently and steadily being eroded by inflation. The earnings limit is a relevant consideration here. It was last raised—in April 1964—to £5. Since then, according to the provisional figures for April 1966, average earnings have risen from £17 12s. to £20 5s.—a rise of 15·1 per cent. Yet nothing has been done to raise the earnings limit. Nor has anything been done to raise the increments in regard to postponing retirement. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had said something about that, as the

matter was mentioned by one of my hon. Friends.

The relevance of the new Clause is that even if older people can do enough to justify their employer keeping them on, even if the small employer can say to an old person, "If you can put in a few more hours, do a little more work and earn a little more, it will make it worth while paying the extra 25s. to keep you at work," it is quite possible that the operation of the earnings rule may mean that the old person will not get much benefit for himself from his extra work. As one hon. Member said, one cannot dissociate in this argument the question of the employment of the old and the pensions for retired people who do not choose to go back to work.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) made the case very plainly, indeed, particularly for the small shopkeeper and the hotelier, but theirs are not the only constituencies being adversely affected in this way. Hon. Members on all sides will have received large numbers of letters on this very point.

One of my main charges against the Government on this new Clause, as in regard to other parts of the Bill, is that they are risking grave damage for the future—because, as has been pointed out, more and more old people are concerned every year—for a very problematical gain in the present.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to offer more than a faint hope that in some circumstances he would be willing to look again at the problems and difficulties of the old under the S.E.T., I must ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the Committee, and I hope that one or two of the Liberal Members who have expressed their views this evening will support the new Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 128, Noes 175.

Division No. 154.]
AYES
[11.49 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Bullus, Sir Eric


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Carlisle, Mark


Astor, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Chichester-Clark, R.


Balniel, Lord
Bromley-Davenport. Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Cooper, Key, Sir Neill


Batsford, Brian
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Corfield, F. V.


Bessell, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Angus, N&amp;M)
Crowder, F. P.


Body, Richard
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Currie, G. B. H.




Dance, James
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Prior, J. M. L.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Francis


d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridsdale, Julian


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Royle, Anthony


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshaiton)
Longden, Gilbert
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lubbock, Eric
Sharples, Richard


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Foster, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Temple, John M.


Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil
Thorpe, Jeremy


Grant, Anthony
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gurden, Harold
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ward, Dame Irene


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Hawkins, Paul
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Webster, David


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nott, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, William


Hill, J. E. B.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Pardoe, John
Worsley, Marcus


Hooson, Emlyn
Peel, John
Wylie, N. R.


Hornby, Richard
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hn. George


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Jasper More and


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Peter Blacker.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Fernyhough, E.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Alldritt, Walter
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Allen, Scholefleld
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Floud, Bernard
Jeger, George (Goole)


Beaney, Alan
Foley, Maurice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bidwetl, Sydney
Ford, Ben
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Forrester, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blackburn, F.
Fowler, Gerry
Judd, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kelley, Richard


Boardman, H.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Kenyon, Clifford


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Boston, Terence
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lawson, George


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Gardner, A. J.
Ledger, Ron


Boyden, James
Garrow, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gourlay, Harry
Luard, Evan


Buchan, Norman
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McBride, Neil


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gregory, Arnold
McCann, John


Carmichael, Nell
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacDermot, Niall


Coe, Denis
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McGuire, Michael


Coneannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackintosh, John P.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hamling, William
MacPherson, Malcolm


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hannan, William
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Harper, Joseph
Manuel, Archie


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mapp, Charles


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Haseldine, Norman
Mason, Roy


Delargy, Hugh
Hazell, Bert
Mayhew, Christopher


Dell, Edmund
Henig, Stanley
Mendelson, J. J.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Dickens, James
Hooley, Frank
Molloy, William


Dobson, Ray
Horner, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Doig, Peter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R, (Openshaw)


Donnelly, Desmond
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Murray, Albert


Dunn, James A.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Newens, Stan


Dunnett, Jack
Howie, W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hoy, James
Norwood, Christopher


Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ogden, Eric


Ellis, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian


Ennals, David
Hunter, Adam
Oram, Albert E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley







Oswald, Thomas
Sheldon, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pentland, Norman
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Slater, Joseph
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Small, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Winterbottom, R. E.


Price, William (Rugby)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Woof, Robert


Redhead, Edward
Varley, Eric G.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Rees, Merlyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Yates, Victor


Richard, Ivor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roebuck, Roy
Weitzman, David
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Rose, Paul
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Ryan, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

It being after eight minutes to Twelve o'clock (the House having resolved itself into the Committee at eight minutes to Four o'clock), The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [18th July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Schedules agreed to.

Whereupon The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order [18th July], left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

Orders of the Day — TRAFFIC CONGESTION, TADCASTER AND SELBY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: I am very glad, even at this late hour, to be able to raise on the Adjournment a serious road traffic problem affecting two towns in my constituency. It is a problem which is not only of local significance but has regional and national repercussions.
The two towns, Tadcaster and Selby, both of which are in my constituency, and both of which are well known to many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, have long histories, established populations and vigorous local lives. In addition, they are both towns which straddle two great trunk road systems. The trunk road running through Selby is the A63 between Hull and Leeds to the West, and the whole of the West Riding conurbation associated with it, as well as the A19 between Doncaster and York. Tadcaster straddles the A64 between Leeds, again to the west, and the West Riding conurbation and York to the east. The road system on either side of these towns spreads out like roots of a great tree, to generate traffic from the whole of the North of England, the whole of the southern part of Yorkshire and the West Riding.
The road arteries narrow down in both these cases, to be channelled through narrow main streets culminating at extremely old, narrow, almost single-carriageway road bridges. Both these bridges have to straddle the water barrier running from the Dales up to the West, the Wharfedale area of the Pennines, right across the Vale of York, becoming first the river Which, which the Tadcaster bridge crosses, and later the Ouse which the Selby toll bridge crosses and running finally into the Humber and the Humber estuary. This is a continuous water artery from the Pennines down to the North Sea, which in this 30 mile section of the West and East Ridings has only these two old narrow bridges with trunk roads across it.
In these two towns straddling these great trunk routes, which are narrowed

and funnelled down into old bridges across the water barrier, life is rapidly becoming unbearable. The choking, throttling effect of the funnelling of these streams of traffic' through narrow main roads, across these two ancient bridges, is intolerable both to pedestrians and to the civil and communal life of the towns in question, and to the traffic which has to negotiate and travel through these towns and across these narrow bridges. If the pedestrians are able to travel at all freely in crossing these roads, at most times of the day it is only because the traffic has been brought to a standstill by congestion. If the traffic is able to flow freely, the pedestrians often have to wait—the record time in Tadcaster is I believe 15 minutes—to cross the road.
I think I should enter in slightly more detail into the special circumstances of Selby and Tadcaster, which I know the Parliamentary Secretary, who is beginning to get familiar with the hazards of these two towns, will appreciate. May I point out that in the case of Selby the A63 trunk road, running from west to east through Selby, connects on the West the whole of the West Riding conurbation, principally Leeds and beyond that Liverpool, and the great industrial area in Lancashire, to the great centre of population and industry of Hull. Here we have on the west one of the largest concentrations of industry and population of the whole of the British Isles, running from Liverpool through the West Riding industrial centres to Hull, the third largest port in the British Isles.
One needs to bear these two great centres in mind—on the east, Hull connecting the West Riding conurbation and beyond that Liverpool, and the great industrial concentrations of the West. Believe it or not, these are funnelled and concentrated into the town of Selby to cross the River Ouse on an ancient, wooden, swing toll bridge. It was constructed under a Private Act of Parliament dated 1790.
I should point out, in addition, that it is inevitable that the traffic should be stopped. This is because every vehicle which has to go across this bridge from the huge concentrations of industry and population which I have described to the west, to move to the great port of Hull to the east, has to come to a dead stop


in order to pay the toll. Not only that, it has occasionally to come to a stop because the bridge is a swing bridge which sometimes has to be opened to admit river traffic.
I should point out that this narrowing down of the great concentration of traffic through Selby occurs at a bridge which is an old wooden structure with a carriage way which is 18 feet wide. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that under the latest Construction and Use Regulations for commercial vehicles, as amended in October 1965, vehicle widths, including over-hang of the load, can be as much as 9 ft. 6 in. When two vehicles of this width cross at the same time it means that the narrow section at the side for pedestrians is no longer available as the vehicles are bound to cross onto it. This is the main trunk road between the West Riding conurbation and the third largest port in the British Isles. People locally feel that this is an intolerable anachronism and that steps have to be taken to relieve or supersede this trunk road which crosses the River Ouse at Selby toll bridge.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well that the bridge has to be superseded. He will know this from the report of the consultants who were appointed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) in 1962 when he was Minister. This report, which is now to hand, states, on page 78, volume one, that a new bridge will be needed by the year 1974, even if the current proposals which the Minister of Transport has for the reorganisation of the Humberside roads had already been put into effect. Whatever happens, the year 1974 has been put into a document as the year by which this bridge has to be superseded and by-passed. My plea to the Parliamentary Secretary is to give urgent consideration to bringing forward this by-pass and new bridge to the north earlier than the final date stated in that report. The East Riding County Council believes that priority should be given to this now as part of the proposals for the new Humberside road network; I support this view.
I believe that a bridge could be put across the Ouse north of Selby for the modest price of £500,000, which does not bulk very large in the £50 million

set aside for the Humberside road network for which the Minister published the plans on 21st September, 1965. There is a much publicised and expensive alternative which would cost £5 million. This is a new high-level bridge at Hook which forms part of the proposals for the Humberside road network. This proposal has been brought into doubt by renewed talk from several directions about the Humber bridge itself on the site of the proposed bridge which the Humber Bridge Board has published.
It is interesting that in another place on 30th November, 1965, the Government stated that if oil or gas were found in the North Sea or if a new town were planned for Lincolnshire, the Humber bridge could become urgent and the matter would be dealt with on that basis. It is clear that these provisoes have been fulfilled. Gas has been found in the North Sea. There is no longer an "if". Gas is being rapidly developed. Secondly, the First Secretary has publicly stated that urgent consideration is now being given to a new Humberside town in Lincolnshire.
Both considerations make it apparent that a new Humber bridge, the one that the Minister referred to in the famous Hull by-election, is now a present and actual possibility. If this is true, it is ludicrous for the Minister to continue the old idea of the Hook high level bridge costing £5 million which formed part of her September proposals. It is ludicrous to suppose that there would be two enormous bridges, one costing £5 million and one costing £11 million, both to the south of the A63 and both crossing the Ouse and Humber only 20 miles apart, It is unthinkable.
If the Humber bridge is now to come off, as looks increasingly likely, it is evident that priority should be given for a Selby bridge to cross the Ouse north of Selby as the second logical link in the revised Humberside road network. I hope that the Minister will give urgent consideration to the substitution of a Selby by-pass bridge for the proposed Hook high-level bridge in the light of the developments on Humberside and the new Humber bridge that is proposed.
I turn to Tadcaster. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was good enough courteously to receive a deputation from the Tadcaster Rural District Council, which


I accompanied, in the last Parliament to talk about the problems of Tadcaster. He will be familiar with the fact that here we have two distinct features of a traffic problem arising. The first is that the A64 trunk road linking the West Riding industrial conurbation—Leeds, Wakefield, Bradford and the rest—with the holiday resorts that these great cities customarily use goes through the narrow, almost single lane, old bridge across the Wharfe in Tadcaster. When the holiday season comes and the traffic pours out of Leeds and the rest of the West Riding industrial conurbation to seek the pleasures of York races and, beyond, those of Scarborough, Whitby, Bridlington and the whole Yorkshire National Park area it travels on dual carriageway roads on either side of the single channel through the High Street of Tadcaster and over the old River Wharfe bridge, leading all too often to a line of stationary traffic stretching for five miles from Tadcaster to the crossroads on the A1 where the dual carriageway is.
This traffic is a recurring and growing problem, and with it is associated—this is the point that I want to bring home—a growing volume of industrial traffic generated by two new features. The first is the growing use of the ports of Scarborough and Bridlington for the timber trade, resulting in a huge volume of lorry-borne timber traffic between Scarborough and Bridlington and the North-Eastern ports, coming down through York and Tadcaster on the A64 over the old narrow bridge to the West Riding industrial centres. Added to that, we now have the growth of heavy—perhaps I should say, very heavy—industrial traffic generated by North Sea gas exploration.
What does this amount to? I would like to refer to some cases in point. On 23rd June an enormous drum of some 60 or 65 ft. in length, and about 18 ft. in diameter, on a huge articulated lorry, became stuck in the narrow High Street of Tadcaster. This load was part of an oil rig for gas exploration in the North Sea, and it was stuck there for about three hours, from about 3.15 to six o'clock in the evening. All traffic on the A.64 road was brought to a standstill. Of course, in most cases where there is a road blockage caused by some outsize load—perhaps in every case—the expedient is simply to

divert the traffic and filter it through nearby residential roads until it again reaches the main traffic route. When the only road is across a river with a narrow bridge, however, then the only way is to divert the traffic right away from that bridge; and when we experienced this first really big load that meant diverting traffic over a fifteen miles stretch of route. The whole of the road from Tadcaster to York and from Tadcaster to Bramham fifteen miles in length, was closed for more than three hours, due to this single hold-up in Tadcaster.
A few weeks later, on 19th July, an enormous boiler, 70 ft. long and 16 ft. in diameter, took half an hour to negotiate the High Street; and that happened to coincide with the time when York races traffic was returning. This complete blockage resulted from the movement of one heavy industrial vehicle. On 8th July, a great section of an oxygen plant tried to get through and held up all traffic for a considerable time. I have tried to show that this is becoming a recurring feature of life in Tadcaster today. Gas exploration development, together with the growth of the new development areas, along with an increase in heavy industrial traffic between southeastern and north Yorkshire, all help to generate more industrial traffic. As I have said, we are increasingly getting this type of traffic where we used to have holiday traffic, and the situation is becoming intolerable. Traffic, and the life of the town, is being throttled to a standstill.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been kind enough to give some thought to this problem before tonight and to admit that a bypass is necessary, to give a firm date for it to be begun. I ask him to put a Tadcaster bypass into a firm programme and to deal with the East and West Riding road problem as a matter of the greatest urgency; for present traffic is causing a complete breakdown in communications, not only in the region with which I am concerned, but in a wide area on either side.

12.19 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): This debate must end at 12.29 a.m. and the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has left me with little time in which to reply. He has also spoken of two improvement schemes,


whereas one was introduced as the subject for debate. I must, therefore, intervene now because time is so limited, and I must say that it would be ludicrous if hon. Members in this House started engineering roads. They have not the expertise for the job. We need to gather together the best engineering brains we have and to apply them to the problems accruing from the principles laid down in the Government's road programme.
Let me, in the limited time available to me, come straight away to the main problems. To deal first with the last part of the hon. Member's speech, as he has said Tadcaster presents a serious problem. Tadcaster is situated on the intersection of the A.64 from Leeds to York with the A.162 from Doncaster and the A.659 from Wetherby. As so often happens, and as I have said many times from this Box, improvements in one place in the roads programme often have the effect of causing a temporary deterioration elsewhere.
Last year we completed the flyover junction of the A.1 with the A.64 and this, together with the five miles of dual carriageway between Tadcaster and York, has had the effect of making the A.64 an attractive road for private and commercial traffic were it not for the bottleneck at Tadcaster.
As the hon. Member has said, the traffic difficulties at Tadcaster are no news to me. I remember very well, on 29th July last year, receiving a deputation from the Rural District Council led by the hon. Member. At that meeting, details of the Council's case for the inclusion of the proposed A.64 bypass of Tadcaster and the trunk road were discussed. I assured the members of the deputation that my right hon. Friend the Minister accepted—we do accept—the need for such a bypass to be provided for Tadcaster. The only issue is the priority to be accorded to the scheme.
At that time I pointed out that the Minister was required to take into account the needs of the country as a whole in drawing up the roads programme. I also gave the assurance, however, that the A.64 bypass of Tadcaster would be considered for inclusion in the next extension of the roads programme. It was so considered. As the hon. Member is aware, however, it has not so far been found possible to include it. But in

the next roll forward of the programme it will be considered, together with other urgent road schemes throughout the country.
Therefore, I say of Tadcaster that we accept that a bypass is the only real answer to the problem as no further improvement can be made by use of traffic engineering techniques. Already no-waiting restrictions are operative along the trunk road. Every other possibility has been examined. Therefore, we are giving urgent attention to the alignment of the bypass.
It has hitherto been envisaged that the bypass would leave the existing A64 at Toulston Grange, west of the town, passing on the north side and rejoining the existing road east of the town at Tadcaster Bar, where the dual carriageways to York commence, and that it would include a bridge over the river Wharfe and an interchange junction with the A659. At present, the county surveyor is in consultation with the county planning officer on the possible line of a southerly bypass.
There is also a further bypass included on the county development plan to connect the A162 to the A659 so that through north-south traffic can avoid the centre of Tadcaster. This road, however, is closely linked with other proposals for the redevelopment of the centre of Tadcaster and no decision is in the offing. But we are urgently considering this matter and it will be considered in the next roll forward of the roads programme.
In the very short time that remains, I turn to Selby. Selby, we know, also presents a problem, situated as it is at the intersection of three important roads, the A63 from Leeds to Hull, the A19 from York to Doncaster and the A1041 from Snaith. All these routes converge on the toll bridge, which is a single 17-ft. carriageway wooden swing bridge. The river Ouse forms a natural barrier between Hull and the Great North Road, the A1, and the toll bridge is an important crossing place not only for the traffic between Hull and the West Riding conurbation and beyond, but also for the north-south traffic from Sunderland and York. With the increase in traffic over the years the toll bridge is now the main cause of congestion in


Selby, but from the very latest advice given to me, to put the matter in perspective, I am informed that this bridge is open on average to shipping only 12 times per week.
Nevertheless, we recognise that the only real solution is to divert traffic from the town by providing an alternative route, and we also recognise, as implied in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, that this is linked with the larger question of the future trunk road needs between Hull and the Great North Road, for which a new proposed network was announced last September by my then right hon. Friend. Included in these proposals at that time last September was a new east-west route from Ferrybridge on the A1 to the A63 east of Howden, about 20 miles west of Hull, to form an extension to the M62 Lancashire-Yorkshire motorway and considerably to improve east-west communications between Hull and the industrial areas of the West Riding and south-east Lancashire.
The proposed road would not of itself provide a bypass for Selby—we recognise that—but the through traffic from Hull to the A1 would undoubtedly find the new route attractive as it includes a high level bridge over the River Ouse at Hook, and the amount of traffic going along the A63 through Selby would thus be considerably reduced. This was one of the principal factors in this decision. An alternative road network has been proposed by various local authorities, including the East Riding County Council. They propose that the east-west route should pass to the north of Selby, providing an east-west bypass of the town, and should join the A1 at Ledsham

instead of at Ferrybridge. At the present time a detailed examination is being made of the advantages claimed for this alternative network.
My right hon. Friend, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, will give very careful attention to what he has said tonight and the proposals made by the local authorities in considering these alternatives before she announces her definitive decision. I appreciate that if the original proposals for the Al Humberside network are confirmed the problem of congestion in Selby will not be solved, because local traffic will not directly benefit. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, recently given an undertaking that she would, in that event, investigate separately what improvements might be made at Selby.
In the meantime we are endeavouring to reduce the congestion at Selby by restricting waiting in the main roads. In May this year some "No waiting" orders were made, and further orders are now being considered, but I accept that these measures have only limited value, and, as I have already said, the real solution lies in diverting traffic away from Selby. Therefore, we are fully aware of the problem which exists here. My right hon. Friend has expressed her preparedness to consider alternative proposals made by——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.